^J^SSTOFPRiivc^ 


^iOG/CAL  SE»\^ 


^^. 


CRITICAL 


r.': 


HISTOEY  AND  DEPENCE 


OF   THE 


OLD  TESTAMENT  CANON. 


BT 


m/stuart, 

PROFESSOR  OF  SAC.  LITERATURE  IN  THE  THEOL.  SEMINARY, 
ANDOVER,  MASS. 


ANDOVER: 

ALLEN,    MORRILL   AND    WARDWELL. 

NEW  YORK  :   MARK  H.  NEWMAN. 

1845. 


*% 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1845,  by 

MOSES  STUART, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


CONTENTS. 


§  1. 

§    2. 

§  3. 
§  4. 
§  5. 
§  6. 
§  7. 
§  8. 
§  9. 
§  10. 
§11. 
§12. 
§  13. 
§  14. 
§  15. 
§  16. 
§17. 
§  18. 
§  19. 
§  20. 
§  21. 


Introductory  Kemarks 

Definition  of  the  word  Canon 

Commencement  of  the  Canon 

State  of  Literatm'e  and  Instruction  among  the  Hebrews 

Continued  History  of  the  Canon  ;  books  of  known  authors 

Continued  History  ....  Books  anonymous 

Lost  books  of  the  Hebrews 

Manner  of  preserving  the  Sacred  books 

Genuineness ;  general  considerations 

Completion  of  the  Canon   , 

Ancient  divisions  of  the  Canon  . 

Sameness  of  the  Jewish  Canon  ever  since  its  completion 

General  Results  .... 

Canon  of  the  Egyptian  Jews 

How  were  the  Scriptures  estimated  by  the  Jews  ? 

Summary  of  testimony  by  Sirach,  Philo,  and  Josephus 

Nature  and  importance  of  Xew  Testament  testimony 

Appeals  by  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old 

Eesult 

Conclusion  .        .        .         .t       . 

Remarks  on  doubts  respecting  some  of  the  Old  Test,  books 

Use  of  the  Old  Testament 


PAGE 
1 

24 
31 
60 
134 
142 
180 
194 
214 
221 
244 
256 
293 
298 
300 
312 
313 
319 
343 
346 
348 
385 


APPENDIX. 

No.  I.  Testimony  of  the  Son  of  Sirach 423 

No.  II.        "  of  Philo  Judaeus 428 

No.  in.       "  of  Josephus 429 

No.  IV.      "  of  MeUto 431 


CONTENTS. 


No.  V.  "  of  Origen 

No.  VI.  "  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea 

No.  Vn.  "  of  C}Till  of  Jerusalem     . 

No.  VIII.  "  of  Gregory  Nazianzen    . 

No.  IX.  "  of  Athanasius 

No.  X.  "  of  Synopsis  of  Scripture 

No.  XI.  "  of  Epiphanius 

No.  Xn.  "  of  the  Council  of  Hippo 

No.  Xin.  "  of  the  CouncH  of  Cailhage 

No.  XIV.  "  of  Jerome 

No.  XV.  "  of  Hilaiy 

No.  XVI.  »  of  Rufinus      . 


433 
436 
437 
439 
441 
443 
445 
447 
448 
448 
451 
452 


CRITICAL    HISTORY 


AND   PF.FENCE  OF  THE 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


§  1.  Introductory  Remarks. 

The  time  has  been,  when  few,  if  any,  who  admitted  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  religion,  deemed 
it  consistent  or  decorous  to  deny  the  sacred  authority  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  But  that  time  has  passed  away, 
and  we  have  come  to  witness  new  developments  of  skeptical 
feelings,  at  which  our  ancestors  would  have  stood  astounded. 
I  do  not  mean  to  aver,  that  there  has  not,  for  ages  past,  been 
a  class  of  men  in  all  Christian  countries,  who  doubted  the 
divine  authority  of  the  Christian  and  Jewish  religion,  and  of 
course  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  sacred  books  in 
general.  But  the  professed  reception  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion as  divine,  with  the  admission  that  the  New  Testament 
contains  at  least  a  credible  and  authentic  account  of  it ;  the  ad- 
mission at  the  same  time,  that  the  Jewish  religion  had  some 
proper  and  real  claim  to  be  considered  as  having  been  approv- 
ed and  established  by  God,  while  the  Old  Testament  is  regard- 
ed in  the  main  as  a  work  of  sciolists  and  impostors  ;  is  a  phe- 
nomenon that  has  rarely  occurred,  I  believe,  in  any  coun- 
try, but  which  we  of  the  present  day  are  called  upon,  perhaps 
for  the  first  time,  to  witness. 

Past  experience  and  a  priori  reasoning  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  would  probably  have  led  most  persons  to  conclude, 

1 


2  §  1.    INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

that  such  a  development  would  not  take  place  on  the  part  of 
any  well  informed  and  consistent  man ;  yet  Mr.  Norton,  in  a 
work  replete  in  many  respects  with  learning  and  valuable 
matter — a  work  which  he  entitles  Evidences  of  the  Genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels — has  taken  the  unusual  position  which  I 
have  been  describing.  In  a  Note  appended  to  Vol.  II.  of 
this  work,  extending  from  p.  xlviii.  to  p.  cc,  in  which  he  has 
brought  under  review  "  the  Jewish  dispensation,  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  the  other  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,"  he  has 
developed  his  opinions  at  length  on  these  subjects,  and  actual- 
ly and  earnestly  labored  to  show,  that  in  order  to  maintain 
the  divine  origin  of  the  Jewish  religion,  as  founded  by  Moses, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  show  that  he  did  not  write  the  Pen- 
tateuch ;  and  in  like  manner,  in  order  to  show  that  the  Jewish 
prophets  and  others-  who  labored  to  promote  the  observance 
of  the  Jewish  religion,  were  the  true  disciples  of  a  true  reli- 
gion, it  becomes  necessary  to  show,  that  most  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament books  are  filled  with  incredible,  or  trivial,  or  super- 
stitious narrations  and  notions,  and  that  the  best  we  can  do, 
even  with  the  prophets,  is  to  select  here  and  there  a  pas- 
sage that  accords  with  reason  and  sound  judgment,  to  which 
we  may  give  our  assent  as  being  worthy  of  the  ancient  dis- 
pensation,, while  the  rest  is  to  be  placed  under  the  same  cat- 
egory as  the  fictions  and  extravagant  accounts  of  all  other 
nations,  respecting  their  origin  and  their  history  in  ages  too 
remote  to  have  been  consigned  to  writing. 

It  is  not  my  design,  in  the  present  work,  to  review  at 
length  and  controvert  all  the  positions  of  Mr.  Norton.  It 
will  be  seen,  in  the  brief  account  that  I  sliall  give  of  them  in 
the  sequel,  that  a  great  proportion  of  them  belong  rather  to 
the  department  of  Christian  theology,  specially  of  apologetic 
and  polemic  theology,  than  to  the  department  of  sacred  liter- 
ature. I  leave  to  others  what  properly  belongs  to  tliem,  not 
doubting  in  the  least  that  there  is  the  ability  and  the  will, 
among  some  of  the  theologians  of  our  country,  to  put  on  their 
armour  and  advance  to  the  contest,  when  the  attempt  is  made 
to  take  our  citadel  by  storm^    My  intention  is  to  confine  my- 


§  1.    INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  S 

self,  in  the  main,  within  the  limits  of  a  critical  and  histori- 
cal view  of  the  Jewish  Canon  of  Scripture  in  the  days  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  and  to  show  that  this  Canon,  as  receiv- 
ed hy  the  Jews  at  that  time,  was  declared  hy  our  Saviour  and 
his  apostles  to  he  of  divine  origin  and  authority,  and  was 
treated  by  them  c^  entitled  to  these  claims.  If  it  can  be  shown 
that  Christ  and  the  apostles,  rs  the  commissioned  messen- 
gers of  God  to  establish  Christianity,  did  receive,  regard,  and 
treat  the  Scriptures  of  the  Jews  as  obligatory  and  of  divine 
authority,  and  also  that  these  Scriptures  were  the  same  books 
which  belong  to  our  present  Old  Testament,  then  two  con- 
sequences must  follow  from  the  establishment  of  these  propo- 
sitions. The  first  is,  that  whatever  doubts  or  difficulties  any 
one  may  have  about  the  critical  history  or  origin  of  particu- 
lar books  in  the  Old  Testament,  still  he  must  now  acknow- 
ledge that  they  have  received  the  sanction  of  an  authority 
from  which  there  is  no  appeal.  Universal  skepticism  alone 
can  make  exceptions  to  them,  on  the  ground  of  credibility 
and  authenticity.  The  second  is,  that  the  man  who  admits 
the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  religion,  and 
that  the  New  Testament  contains  a  credible  and  authentic 
account  or  development  of  it  by  Christ  and  by  the  apostles, 
must  be  altogether  inconsistent  with  himself  and  inconse- 
quent in  his  reasonings,  if  he  rejects  the  divine  origin  and  au- 
thority of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

.  If  I  succeed  in  proving  in  a  historico-critical  way  what  I 
design  to  prove,  the  nucleus  of  the  question,  as  to  the  author- 
ity and  claims  of  the  Old  Testament,  would  seem  to  be  reach- 
ed. I  shall  not  endeavour  therefore  to  invest  myself,  on  the 
present  occasion,  with  the  panoply  of  the  merely  apologetic 
and  polemic  theologian.  Let  those  use  it,  who  have  long 
worn  it,  and  are  semper  parati  for  contest  The  simple  sling 
and  stone  of  historical  criticism  are  all  that  I  kssay  to  use. 
And  if  I  miss  my  aim,  I  must  leave  it  for  others  to  defend 
our  common  citadel  in  a  more  effectual  manner ;  for  defence 
would  seem  to  be  needed.  The  contest  has  become  one  pro 
aris  etfocis. 


4  §  1.   INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

Mr.  Norton's  work  consists  of  three  volumes,  and  is  print- 
ed in  a  splendid  manner.  The  size  of  the  work,  and  the  con- 
sequent price  of  it,  will  doubtless  prevent  a  widely  extended 
circulation  of  the  book.  On  this  account,  and  because  of 
what  I  have  alread}^  said  respecting  it,  I  have  thought  it 
would  appear  desirable  to  most  of  my  readers  to  learn  some- 
thing of  the  nature  of  the  attack  which  he  has  made  upon 
the  Old  Testament,  through  the  medium  of  some  brief  com- 
munication. In  as  summary  a  manner  as  possible,  I  will 
therefore  now  present  them  with  a  coup  d'oeil,  or  table  of 
contents,  of  that  portion  of  his  work  which  I  have  specially 
in  view  on  this  occasion. 

He  commences  with  the  concession,  that  the  Jewish  reZ/yiOW 
is  divine,  and  that  Christianity  is  built  upon  it.  But  this,  he 
says,  does  not  make  Christianity  in  the  least  degree  respon- 
sible for  the  hooks  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Jewish  reli- 
gion itself,  he  avers,  is  no  more  responsible  for  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  than  Christianity  is  responsible  for  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  from  the  second  century  to  the  elev- 
enth ;  p.  48  seq. 

The  character  ascribed  by  most  Christians  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures,  he  goes  on  to  say,  brings  them  into  colh- 
sion  with  rational  criticism  in  the  interpretation  of  language, 
with  the  moral  and  religious  conceptions  of  enlightened  men, 
and  with  the  progress  of  the  physical  sciences.  They  are 
contradicted  by  geology ;  p.  50.  The  philosopher  must  re- 
ject their  [the  scriptural]  views  of  the  Godhead  ;  the  enlight- 
ened Christian  and  moralist  must  reject  the  cruelties  which 
ihey  often  enjoin,  as  appropriate  only  to  a  dark  and  barba- 
rous age ;  the  careful  inquirer  will  be  revolted  by  their  con- 
tradictions and  discrepancies.  The  explanations  and  defence 
of  these  things  have  been  unsatisfactory,  and  built  on  false 
principles  and  assumed  facts ;  so  that  one  can  hardly  believe 
that  the  men  who  have  oflfered  them  have  been  sincere  in  so 
doing;  p.  51  seq. 

In  expressing  these  views,  he  says  that  he  merely  gives 
form  and  voice  to  the  ideas  and  feelings  that  exist  in  the 


§  1.    INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  B 

minds  of  a  large  portion  of  intelligent  believers  ;  p.  52.  To 
separate  all  these  things  from  Christianity,  so  that  it  shall  not 
be  responsible  for  them,  is  the  duty  of  every  friend  to  this 
religion  ;  p.  53. 

To  maintain  that  Moses  was  a  minister  of  God,  is  one 
thin  or ;  to  maintain  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
is  another.  So  far  is  the  truth  of  either  proposition  from  be- 
ing involved  in  the  other,  that,  in  order  to  render  it  evident 
that  the  mission  of  Moses  was  from  God,  it  may  be  neces- 
sary to  prove  that  the  books,  which  profess  to  contain  a  his- 
tory of  his  ministry,  were  not  written  by  him,  and  do  not  af- 
ford an  authentic  account  of  it ;  p.  67. 

The  Pentateuch  puts  forward  no  claims  to  be  considered 
as  the  work  of  Moses.  The  fact  that  the  Law,  in  the  time 
of  Ezra,  was  ascribed  to  Moses,  does  not  prove  that  the  au- 
thorship of  the  Pentateuch  was  at  the  same  time  ascribed  to 
him.  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  a  short  time  before  the  capti- 
vity, the  Jews  were  ignorant  of  any  written  copy  of  their  na- 
tional laws,  as  is  evident  from  the  discovery  as  represented  of 
a  copy  of  the  Law  in  the  temple.  Such  a  book  was  before 
unknown  to  Josiah  a  pious  Iting,  to  the  secretary  Shaphan, 
and  to  the  high  priest  Hilkiah.  "  The  story  of  its  being  ac- 
cidentally found  in  the  temple,  may  be  thought  to  have  been 
what  was  considered  a  justifiable  artifice,  to  account  for  the 
appearance  of  a  book  hitherto  unknown;"  pp.  71,  84,  86. 

The  Canon  ©f  the  Old  Testament,  after  the  captivity,  com- 
prised all  the  books  of  the  Hebrews  then  extant.  This  Ca- 
non was  formed  upon  no  principle  of  selection,  but  comprised 
all  the  remains  of  ancient  literature.  There  is  little  doubt 
that  compositions  were  ascribed  to  some  of  the  prophets,  par- 
ticulary  to  Isaiah,  of  which  they  were  not  the  authors ;  p. 
72  seq. 

The  tradition  that  Ezra  revised  and  reedited  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  is  obviously  fabulous.  There  exists  no 
historical  evidence  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. In  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  in- 
deed reference  to  various  narratives  and  laws  now  found  in 

1* 


6  §  1.    INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

the  Pentateuch ;  but  these  references  are  in  fact  to  traditions 
and  national  laws  that  existed  before  the  Pentateuch ;  and 
by  the  aid  of  these  the  Pentateuch  was  afterwards  compiled ; 
p.  73  seq. 

No  such  book  as  a  Pentateuch  by  Moses  is  mentioned  in 
the  books  of  Samuel,  or  Kings,  or  in  those  of  the  prophets 
who  were  the  public  teachers  of  religion ;  p.  82  seq.  The 
Pentateuch  could  not  have  been  the  national  code  of  the 
Jews  ;  for  its  ordinances  were  not  observed  during  the  long 
period  of  the  monarchies,  and  many  things  were  often  done 
which  the  Pentateuch  forbids  ;  or  neglected  which  it  enjoins  ; 
p.  88  seq. 

The  Pentateuch  was  not  written  until  some  time  after  the 
return  of  the  Jews  from  the  captivity  ;  .and  then,  tradition- 
ary stories,  laws,  customs,  ritual  observances,  etc.,  were  in- 
serted, and  all  these  were  attributed  to  Moses,  in  order  to 
give  greater  weight  and  authority  to  the  compilation  ;  p.  96 
seq. 

The  art  of  writing  was  not  in  use  in  the  time  of  Moses ; 
and  consequently  the  writing  of  the  Pentateuch  by  him  was 
impossible ;  p.  100  seq.  The  style  of  Moses  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  been  so  much  like  the  style  of  the  later  writers. 
A  period  so  long,  without  more  change  of  language,  is  in- 
credible and  contrary  to  all  experience  ;  p.  102  seq.  The 
Pentateuch  contains  narrations  of  events  later  than  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  if  it  had  been  really  his  work  interpolations  of 
this  kind  could  never  have  taken  place  ;  p.  105  seq. 

The  Pentateuch  does  not  make  claim  to  Moses  as  its  au- 
thor. It  always  speaks  of  him  in  the  third  person,  and  not 
in  the  first.  Such  a  semblance  of  modesty  would  have  been 
wholly  unsuitable  for  him  in  his  official  character  ;  p.  106. 

Thti  facts  related  in  the  Pentateuch  show  that  it  is  full  of 
inaccuracies.  The  number  of  fighting  men  (600,000),  when 
the  Israelites  left  Egypt,  is  incredible  and  impossible.  Their 
original  number  and  time  of  sojourning  in  Egypt  were  utter- 
ly inadequate  to  have  brought  into  existence  such  a  number. 
The  genealogy  of  Moses  proves  that  the  Israelites  could  not 


§  1.   INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  7 

have  been  in  Egypt  more  than  215  years  at  the  most,  in- 
stead of  the  430  as  commonly  reckoned,  and  215  years  could 
have  done  but  little  toward  producing  such  a  number ;  p. 
110  seq. 

The  account  of  the  flight  from  Egypt,  and  of  the  journey 
through  the  wilderness,  is  replete  with  difficulties,  incredibili- 
ties, and  impossibilities.  How  could  two  and  a  half  millions 
of  men  be  put  in  motion  in  one  night  ?  Whence  all  their 
flocks,  and  herds,  and  wealth  ?  How  could  they  all  quench 
their  thirst  at  Marah,  or  at  Horeb  ?   p.  113  seq. 

Before  the  birth  of  Moses,  Pharoah  is  represented  as  say- 
ing, that  the  Israelites  had  become  stronger  than  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  therefore  the  male  children  must  be  destroyed. 
The  thing  is  impossible.  The  command  is  incredible.  How 
could  Pharoah  wish  to  lessen  the  number  of  his  slaves? 
How  could  he  suppose  it  possible,  that  the  Jews  would  sub- 
mit to  his  cruel  orders  and  obey  him?  p.  115  seq. 

Moreover,  how  could  such  a  multitude  find  food  and  drink 
in  the  Arabian  waste  ?  The  water  was  supplied  miraculous- 
ly but  twice.  What  became  of  their  flocks  and  herds  ?  They 
must  have  all  perished  in  such  circumstances ;  and  hence 
their  state  of  starvation,  i.  e.  by  reason  of  losing  them. 
And  yet,  before  they  quitted  Mount  Sinai,  they  appear  to 
have  had  an  abundance  of  cattle  for  sacrifices,  lambs  for  the 
passover,  and  all  manner  of  spices,  flour,  oil,  wine,  etc ;  p. 
116  seq. 

Whence  came  all  their  skill  in  the  different  arts  ?  How 
could  brick-making  slaves  understand  architecture,  engrav- 
ing, and  the  manufactory  of  splendid  furniture  and  garments  ? 
How  could  they  transport  all  these  through  the  desert,  when 
they  had  no  camels?  p.  119  seq. 

The  Israelites  are  forbidden  to  destroy  all  the  people  of  the 
land  of  Canaan,  lest  wild  beasts  should  overrun  the  country. 
Were  not  tAvo  and  a  half  millions  of  people  more  than 
enough  to  keep  in  due  subjection  the  wild  beasts  of  a  coun- 
try, which  was  only  200  miles  in  length  and  100  in  breadth  ? 
p.  120  seq. 


i  §  1.   INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

On  the  supposition  that  all  the  wonderful  events  took  place 
which  are  narrated  in  the  Pentateuch,  how  is  it  possible  to 
believe  that  the  Jews  would  have  been  so  stupid,  ungrateful, 
and  rebellious  as  their  history  represents  them  to  be  ;  p.  122 
seq.'  There  is  indeed  sublimity  in  the  description  of  the 
creation,  and  lofty  conception  as  to  the  true  nature  of  religion 
in  the  precept,  that  men  should  love  God  with  all  the  heart 
and  their  neighbor  as  themselves.  But  "  in  coming  to  the 
Pentateuch  we  have  entered  only  the  precincts  of  true  reli- 
gion, while  grotesque  shapes  are  around  us,  and  the  heavens 
are  obscured  by  clouds  from  which  the  thunder  is  rolling ;" 
p.  123  seq. 

The  conceptions  of  Grod,  in  Genesis,  are  very  rude  ones. 
In  Ex.  iv.  the  account  of  Jehovah's  meeting  Moses  and  seek- 
ing to  slay  him,  is  strange  indeed.  Ex.  xxiv.  is  not  less  so. 
The  marvellous  theophany  related  there,  and  all  its  tremen- 
dous solemnity  of  preparation,  ends  in  the  command  to  the 
Israelites  to  bring  silver  and  gold  and  rams'  skins  and  goats' 
hair  and  aromatics,  etc.,  and  make  and  furnish  a  tabernacle 
for  Jehovah  to  dwell  in.  Many  other  directions  in  the  se- 
quel are  equally  trivial ;  p.  126  seq. 

God  is  represented  in  a  most  unbecoming  manner  through- 
out the  Pentateuch.  The  command  to  punish  the  Egyptian 
nation  because  of  Pharoah's  haughtiness  and  cruelty ;  the  in- 
junction to  extirpate  the  Midianites,  but  to  keep  the  virgin 
females  for  their  own  use,  (which  at  least  did  but  sanction 
and  perpetuate  the  barbarism  of  the  age)  ;  the  command  of 
utter  excision  in  respect  to  the  Canaanites  ;  are  inconsistent 
with  the  justice  or  the  mercy  of  God.  Why  should  the  in- 
nocent suffer  with  the  guilty,  as  an  oriental  despot  extermi- 
nates a  family  for  the  offences  of  its  head  ?  The  effect  of 
making  the  Jews  executioners  of  the  divine  indignation 
against  the  idolatrous  Canaanites,  must  have  been  to  convert 
them  into  a  horde  of  ferocious  and  brutal  barbarians ;  p. 
127  seq. 

The  distinguishing  rite  of  the  Jews  was  painful,  ^nd  the 
thought  of  it  disgusting.     Nothing  can  render  it  probable, 


§  1.    INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  9 

that  the  laws  respecting  slaves  were  from  God.  And  what 
shall  we  say  of  the  command  to  destroy  witches  ?  What  of 
such  commands  as  forbid  the  eating  of  particular  birds  and 
beasts,  some  of  which  no  one  would  ever  think  of  eating,  ex- 
cept in  case  of  actual  starvation  ?  On  many  laws,  moreover, 
which  the  Pentateuch  contains,  delicacy  forbids  one  even  to 
comment ;  p.  131  seq. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  altogether  evident,  that  the  original  in- 
stitutions of  Moses  had  been  greatly  corrupted  and  changed 
by  superstition,  and  by  hankering  after  ritual  observances, 
before  the  Pentateuch  could  have  been  written  as  it  now  is ; 
p.  134. 

The  spirit  of  the  prophets  is  wholly  different  from  that  of 
the  Law,  and  often  in  opposition  to  it.  They  put  no  faith 
in  sacrifices  or  ritual  observances ;  p.  135  seq.  The  Penta- 
teuch, in  declaring  that  God  visits  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children,  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  Ezekiel,  who 
declares  that  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father, 
nor  the  father  the  iniquity  of  the  son ;  Ezek.  xviii.  This 
same  Ezekiel  is  full  of  unseemly  representations  of  the  God- 
head. His  work  is  repulsive  for  other  reasons.  The  last 
nine  chapters  show  him  to  have  been  a  stickler  for  mere 
rites  and  ceremonies  ;  p.  135  seq. 

Malachi  shows  how  the  Jews  reasoned  and  felt,  after  the 
full  ritual  of  the  Pentateuch  was  introduced.  What  he  says 
is  directly  in  opposition  to  Ps.  1. ;  p.  143  seq.  The  Son  of 
Sirach,  Philo,  Josephus,  the  Essenes,  all  thought  but  little  of 
the  ritual  ordinances  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  p.  145  seq. 

Our  Saviour  everywhere  shows  how  little  he  regarded  the 
Jewish  ritual  ordinances.  "  It  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  that 
his  words  are  not  always  reported  to  us  with  correctness." 
Sometimes,  also,  he  employed  Jewish  modes  of  expression 
that  were  common,  in  order  to  avoid  the  exciting  of  pre- 
judice among  his  hearers.  Both  these  things  are  to  be 
kept  steadily  in  view,  in  the  interpretation  of  what  he  may 
seem  to  have  said  about  the  ancient  Scriptures ;  and  nearly 


10  §  1.   INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS. 

every  difficulty  can  be  removed  by  the  aid  of  tliese  two  con- 
siderations. E.  g.  where  he  is  reported  as  saying :  "  Moses 
wrote  concerning  me,"  it  is  evident  that  the  Evangelist,  through 
default  of  memory  or  want  of  reflection,  used  the  word  wrote 
instead  of  the  word  spoke.  So,  instead  of  receiving,  in  its 
simple  and  obvious  sense,  the  declaration  of  Christ  as  report- 
ed by  John  (John  5:  46),  viz.  "  Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye 
would  have  believed  me  ;  for  he  wrote  concerning  me,"  we  are 
to  adopt  the  following  substitute  as  expressive  of  Christ's  real 
meaning,  viz.  "  Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  be- 
lieved me  ;  for  the  books  which,  as  you  suppose,  Moses  wrote, 
concern  me ;"  p.  150  seq. 

The  Jewish  Law  was  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical.  It 
was  on  this  ground  merely  that  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles 
obeyed  it,  and  required  others  to  do  so,  while  it  continued  ;  p. 
143  seq.  Sometimes,  indeed,  Jesus  violated  it ;  e.  g.  in  order  to 
do  good  on  the  Sabbath,  and  to  inculcate  the  duties  of  kindness 
and  humanity.  This  was  intended  to  lead  the  Jews  to  reflect 
on  the  folly  of  their  attachment  to  ritual  observances  ;  p.  164 
seq.  Occasionally  Christ  directly  taught  the  vanity  and 
groundlessness  of  the  Jewish  Laws  ;  e.  g.  by  what  he  says 
about  eating  that  which  is  unclean  (Matt,  xv.)  ;  by  what  he 
says  in  respect  to  the  matter  of  divorces  (Matt.  xix.  and  v.)  ; 
p.  172  seq.  The  conversation  wdth  the  Samaritan  woman 
(John  iv.)  shows,  how  little  value  Jesus  put  upon  the  whole 
Jewish  ritual ;  p.  179. 

Thus  much  for  the  Pentateuch.  Now  for  the  other  books 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

In  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges  there  is  a  gi-eat  mix- 
ture of  fabulous  traditions,  such  as  are  found  in  the  early 
history  of  all  other  nations;  p.  181.  No  one  who  puts 
aside  the  notion  of  the  divine  authority  of  all  the  Hebrew  books, 
can  doubt  that  extravagant  fables  and  false  prodigies  are  found 
in  all  those  which  relate  the  Jewish  history  antecedent  to  the 
time  of  Samuel ;  and  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why 
the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  should  be  regarded  as  excep- 


§  1.    INTI^DUCTORT   REMARKS.  11 

tions  to  this  mixture ;  p.  185.  But  still  we  may  admit  real 
miracles,  in  cases  where  an  important  and  evident  moral  de- 
sign is  in  view ;  p.  185  seq. 

T\iQ prophets  were  moral  preachers.  Some  of  their  num- 
ber may  have  been  occasionally  employed  as  the  special  min- 
isters of  God.  Jesus  never  appeals  to  them  for  evidence  of 
his  divine  mission.  Our  Saviour  did  not  accomplish  any  ex- 
press prophecy  relating  to  him ;  but  he  came  in  conformity 
to  an  expectation,  which  the  whole  tenor  of  God's  providence 
had  taught  the  Jews  to  entertain  ;  p.  189  seq. 

The  error  committed  in  representing  the  Old  Testament  as 
of  divine  origin,  has,  beyond  question,  been  a  most  serious 
hindrance  to  all  rational  belief  of  the  fact,  that  God  has  mi- 
raculously revealed  himself  to  man  ;  p.  198. 

I  have  now  given  a  compressed  view  of  the  arguments 
employed  by  Mr.  Norton,  in  order  to  overthrow  the  claims  of 
the  Old  Testament  to  be  considered  as  a  book  of  divine  origin 
and  authority.  I  have  in  no  case  made,  by  any  design  or  ef- 
fort on  my  part,  the  representation  stronger  than  he  has  made 
it.  It  is  not  ray  wish  to  paint  in  more  vivid  colours  than  those 
which  he  has  employed.  In  most  cases,  I  have  employed  his 
own  language ;  and  where  I  have  not,  I  have  changed  the 
diction  merely  for  the  sake  of  abridgment,  and  not  from  a  de- 
sign to  employ  any  stronger  colouring. 

Mr.  Norton  himself  declares  (p.  52),  that  "  in  expressing 
his  opinions  he  is  only  giving  form  and  voice  to  the  ideas  and 
feelings  that  exist  in  the  minds  of  a  large  portion  of  intelli- 
gent believers ;"  and  also,  that  "  there  is  nothing  in  them  of 
novelty  or  of  boldness.'''  It  is  indeed  most  obviously  true, 
that  there  is  nothing  special  in  them  of  novelty.  For  sub- 
stance they  have  been  before  the  world  for  some  sixteen 
centuries.  Porphyry  and  Celsus  knew  well  how  to  manage 
weapons  of  this  sort.  But  as  to  boldness,  I  think  his  modes- 
ty should  not  have  shrunk  from  a  claim  to  this.  It  certainly 
did  require  some  boldness  for  one  who  had  been  a  preacher  of 


12  §  1.    INTRODUCTORY  ^MARKS. 

the  gospel  and  a  Teacher  in  a  Theological  Seminary  profes- 
sedly Christian,  to  make  before  the  whole  world  declarations 
such  as  he  has  made.  No  one  indeed  who  knows  him  well,  can 
fail  to  regard  him  as  an  independent  thinker  and  reasoner ; 
and  after  what  he  has  recently  published  to  the  world,  he  may 
not  very  unreasonably  be  denominated  somewhat  of  a  free 
thinker.  Plis  objections  to  the  Old  Testament  are,  it  is  true, 
nearly  all  of  a  date  somewhat  ancient.  But  I  do  not  regard 
him,  on  this  account,  as  merely  copying  and  retailing  the  opin- 
ions of  others.  It  is  manifest  enough,  through  his  whole  work, 
that  he  has  thought  and  reasoned  for  himself,  even  when  he 
has  employed  material  which  others  had  collected  and  which 
he  found  in  a  manner  ready  to  his  hand. 

I  have  already  said,  that  it  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  ex- 
amine in  detail  all  the  objections  of  Mr.  N.  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Most  of  them  plainly  belong  to  the  province  of  po- 
lemic and  apologetic  theology ;  and  I  shall  therefore  leave 
them  to  those  whose  proper  business  it  is  to  act  in  this  de- 
partment. Why  they  have  not  sooner  begun  to  act  in  de- 
fence of  one  of  the  citadels  of  revelation,  I  know  not.  I  have 
not  unfrequently  heard  the  remark  made,  that  *  had  the  ques- 
tion been  one  of  metaphysical  theology,  which  concerned 
points  where  even  evangelical  Christians  may  and  do  disa- 
gree, and  have  for  centuries  disagreed,  there  would  not  have 
been  wanting  a  goodly  number  of  defenders,  specially  against 
an  attack  made  either  by  one  side  or  the  other  upon  points 
mooted  by  New  School  and  Old  School.  But  now,  (they 
have  the  boldness  to  add),  the  theologians  stand  oflP  at  wary 
distance,  as  the  camp  of  Israel  did  when  Goliath  came  out 
to  bid  defiance  to  them.'  But  I  am  reluctant  to  accede 
to  such  an  intimation.  I  know  indeed  full  well,  and  I 
regret,  the  excessive  zeal  that  is  abroad  about  points 
of  mere  speculation  in  theology,  which  are  never  likely  to  be 
settled ;  but  I  must  still  believe,  that  there  are  not  many 
Christian  ministers  in  the  evangelical  ranks,  who  would  not 
relax,  and  recede  from  the  boundaries  that  sect  and  party 


§  1.   INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  13 

names  have  set  up,  when  it  becomes  necessary  to  unite  in 
order  to  defend  and  save  the  citadel  of  all  religion.  Time 
will  show,  whether  I  am  not  in  the  right. 

I  cannot  resist  the  impression  made  on  me  by  the  reading 
of  Mr.  N.'s  critique  on  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  estima- 
tion in  which  he  has  for  many  years  held  it,  has  prevented 
him  from  devoting  much  of  his  time  to  the  study  of  it.  He 
tells  us  (p.  62),  that  his  remarks  on  the  Old  Testament  were 
committed  to  writing  more  than  ten  years  before  he  put  them 
to  the  press.  If  he  had  named  a  period  thrice  as  long,  I  could 
easily  have  believed  his  declaration  to  be  true.  He  has  sure- 
ly made  some  faux  pas  in  matters  of  Old  Testament  criti- 
cism, which,  had  he  read  more  widely,  and  kept  up  at  all 
with  the  times  in  their  development  of  historical  criticism 
pertaining  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  he  could  not  well  have 
made.  I  do  not  say  this  ad  invidiam,  nor  in  order  to  wound 
his  feelings.  I  say  it  from  a  full  persuasion,  that  more  en- 
larged views  would  have  given  quite  a  different  direction  to 
some  parts  of  his  critique,  and  spared  him  the  labour  of  de- 
fending some  things,  which  he  must  now  find,  on  a  more  ex- 
tended examination,  to  be  indefensible. 

My  present  design  forbids  me  to  go  into  detail  at  all,  in 
order  to  justify  these  assertions.  I  can  only  glance  at  one  or 
two  matters,  as  explanatory  of  what  I  mean. 

Mi\  N.  asserts,  that  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that 
alphahetical  writing  was  known  in  the  time  of  Moses.  Should 
he  not  have  known,  that  the  recent  paleographic  examina- 
tions in  Egypt,  Phenicia,  Persia,  and  Assyria,  make  entirely 
against  this,  even  if  he  sets  aside  the  abundant  evidence  of 
the  Greek  writers,  that  their  alphabet  is  as  old  as  the  time  of 
Cadmus  ?  Gesenius,  most  of  his  life  a  strenuous  assertor  of 
the  late  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  was  compelled  by  his  Phe- 
nician  and  Egyptian  investigations  to  say,  that  "  alphabetic 
writing  must  have  been  in  use  among  the  Egyptians  at  least 
2000  years  before  the  Christian  era ;"  and  that  '  their  neigh- 
bours, the  Phenicians,  in  all  probability,  must  have  employed 
this  method  of  writing,  as  early  as  the  reign  of  the  shepherd- 

2 


14  §  1.   INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

kings  in  Egypt/  Ges.  Heb.  Gramm,  edit.  13.  Exc.  I.  p.  290. 
This  preeminent  paleographer,  then,  from  whose  decision  it  , 
is  not  very  safe  to  appeal  as  to  such  matters,  places  the  art  of 
alphabetical  writing  long  enough  before  the  time  of  Moses,  to 
give  it  a  wide  sweep  in  Egypt  and  Phenicia,  and  indeed  m 
the  neighbouring  countries.  And  if  Moses  was  "  learned  in 
all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  and  was  mighty  in  words 
and  deeds,"  as  the  martyr  Stephen  asserts  (Acts  7;  22),  can- 
not one  venture  to  attribute  to  him  the  knowledge  of  alpha- 
betic writing  ? 

Again,  when  IMr.  N.  avers  (p.  102  seq.),  that  the  Hebrew 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  later  Hebrew  books  is  of  the 
same  stamp,  and  that  we  cannot  possibly  suppose,  that  an  in- 
terval of  900  or  1000  years  would  not  have  made  a  greater 
change  in  the  Hebrew  language  than  is  developed  by  these 
Jewish  writings,  I  must  think  that  he  has  not  paid  very  strict 
attention  to  the  history  of  languages.  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that 
the  Peshito  or  old  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
made  during  the  second  century,  is  altogether  of  the  same 
linguistic  tenor  as  the  Syriac  Chronicon  of  Bar  Hebraeus, 
written  about  one  thousand  years  later  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact,  that 
the  Arabic  of  the  Coranj  and  of  the  Arabian  writers  just  before 
and  after  the  time  of  Mohammed,  differs  but  slightly  from 
that  of  the  Arabian  writers  from  the  tenth  down  to  the 
eighteenth  century  ?  And  yet  another  fact.  The  late  Dr. 
Marshman,  a  missionary  in  Hindoostan,  translated  into  Eng- 
lish the  great  work  of  Confucius,  the  celebrated  Chinese  phi- 
losopher and  teacher,  who  lived  more  than  five  centuries  be- 
fore the  Christian  era.  The  same  gentleman  diligently  con- 
sulted the  principal  commentators  on  the  work  of  Confucius, 
and  he  assures  us,  that  commentaries  written  1500  and  more 
years  after  the  time  of  Confucius  are  altogether  of  the  same 
type  of  language  which  is  exhibited  in  the  work  of  that  phi- 
losopher. Facts  like  these,  now,  need  no  comment.  They 
place  the  matter  beyond  fair  appeal.  Indeed  the  nature  of 
the  case  speaks  for  itself.  The  Jews  were  neither  a  literary 
nor  a  commercial  people.      TKey  saw  little  of  strangers 


§  1.    INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  15 

abroad,  and  very  few  foreigners  i-esided  among  them.  They 
knew  Httle  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  certainly  made  no  ad- 
vances in  them.  What  was  there  then  to  operate  in  the  way 
of  producing  many  and  important.changes  in  their  language  ? 
There  was  nothing  like  to  that  which  produces  changes  of 
this  nature  at  the  present  day,  among  the  nations  of  the 
West,  Their  case  was,  in  respect  to  intercourse,  like  to  that 
of  the  Chinese,  The  effect  of  such  a  state  of  things  upon 
language,  was  the  same  in  Palestine  and  in  China. 

Yet  even  in  any  state  of  a  nation,  however  uniform,  we 
cannot  but  suppose  that  a  long  time  will  make  some  varia- 
tions in  language.  It  did  so  among  the  Hebrews.  The  as- 
sertion of  Mr.  N.  is  by  no  means  correct,  that  there  are  no 
diversities  of  language  betv/een  the  Pentateuch  and  later 
books  of  the  Hebrew.  Jahn,  that  well  know^n  and  highly 
respected  theologian  and  critic  at  Vienna,  just  before  his 
death,  published  a  series  of  Essays  in  Bengel's  Arcliiv,  which 
demonstrate  the  point  in  question  beyond  appeal.  Archa- 
isms, or  whatever  Mr.  N.  may  call  them,  abound  to  some  ex- 
tent in  the  Pentateuch ;  and  the  ana^  leyo^iEva  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, Jahn  has  shown  to  be  quite  a  large  number. 

Onee  more  ;  but  in  respect  to  a  case  of  a  different  tenor. 
Mr.  N.  thinks,  that  the  use  of  the  third  person  in  the  narra- 
tions of  the  Pentateuch,  shows  that  Moses  was  not  the  au- 
thor. There  was  no  reason,  he  avers,  for  his  adopting  such 
a  method  of  writing.  It  was  Moses'  business  to  speak  with 
authority,  and  to  place  himself  directly  before  the  people. 

The  histories  of  Caesar  and  Clarendon,  which  employ  the 
third  person,  are  no  justification,  in  his  view,  of  the  usage  in 
question.  Yet  ^Mi*.  N.  maintains,  that  the  Gospels  of  Mat- 
thew^ and  of  John  are  worthy  of  credit.  But  where,  I  ask, 
have  these  writers  spoken  of  themselves  in  the j^rs^  person? 
Mr.  N.  says,  that  the  Pent,  does  not  claim  to  be  the  work 
of  Moses,  i.  e.  he  has  not  affixed  his  name  to  it  as  the  au- 
thor, and  therefore,  there  is  no  certainty  that  the  work  is 
his.  He  will  permit  me  to  ask  him,  how  he  could  write 
three  volumes  to  show  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  when 


16  §  1.   INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS. 

not  a  single  one  of  them  has  the  name  of  its  author  affixed 
to  it,  or  contains  an  explicit  declaration  as  to  who  was  its 
author  ?  Every  sciolist  in  criticism  knows,  that  the  titles 
now  affixed  to  the  Gospels,  are  the  work  of  critics  quite  re- 
mote from  the  times  of  the  apostles. ^ 

But  I  must  withdraw  my  hand.  I  have  said  enough  to  il- 
lustrate and  confirm  the  representation  which  I  have  made 
above  ;  and  this  is  all  that  can  now  be  done. 

]Mi-.  N.  appears  to  cherish  strong  feelings  of  disapproba- 
tion toward  that  branch  of  the  so-called  Liberal  Party,  who 
have  discarded  the  authority  of  both  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  ;  who  doubt  the  personality  of  the  Godhead ;  and 
who  flatly  deny  the  possibility  of  miracles.  He  speaks  of 
their  system  as  a  "  shallow  philosophy,"  and  appears  to  be 
much  in  earnest  when  defending  the  miraculous  power  of 
Christ ;  but  rather  less  so,  perhaps,  when  defending  that  of 
the  apostles.  Yet  most  of  the  reasons  of  any  considerable 
weight,  which  Mr.  N.  has  brought  forward  against  the  claims 
of  the  Old  Testament,  either  flow  from,  or  are  connected  with, 
his  unwillingness  to  believe  in  the  miraculous  interpositions 
of  the  Godhead  as  there  declared.  Was  there  not  as  much 
need  of  these  interpositions  in  the  ancient  times  of  darkness 
and  ignorance,  as  there  was  at  a  later  period  when  the  New 
Testament  was  written  ?  He  allows,  indeed,  a  few  cases  in 
which  he  thinks  that  a  miracle  may  be  deemed  probable  ; 
e.  g.  such  a  case  as  that  of  fire  falling  from  heaven  to  con- 
sume the  sacrifice  which  Elijah  had  prepared,  in  order  to 
put  to  the  test  the  claims  of  Jehovah  and  of  Baal  to  divine 
honors.  But  he  erases  from  the  list  of  credibles  every  case 
of  alleged  miraculous  interposition,  where  he  cannot  perceive 
the  moral  purpose  accomplished  by  it.  A  subjective  line 
of  separation  between  the  true  and  the  false,  he  has  probably 
drawn  for  himself.  A  copy  of  the  drawing,  it  may  be,  is  im- 
pressed upon  his  own  mind.     But  what  the  objective  rule  for 


^  See  Chrysostoni,  Homil.  I.  iu  Matt. ;   also  Hug,  Eiiil.  ins  N.  Testa- 
ment, $  47. 


§  1.    INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  17 

testing  the  credible  and  incredible  is,  by  which  others,  who 
are  of  different  modes  of  thinking  and  who  view  religious 
matters  in  a  different  light,  may  be  guided,  and  may  thus 
possibly  come  to  an  agreement  with  him,  he  has  not  told  us. 
There  are  men,  who  at  least  would  be  greatly  offended  at 
having  either  their  learning,  or  their  logic,  or  their  piety 
called  in  question,  and  who  in  fact  regard  religion  as  a  matter 
of  very  grave  import,  and  yet  have  avowed  themselves  un- 
able to  discover  the  great  moral  end  of  converting  the  water 
at  a  wedding  feast  into  a  large  quantity  of  wine ;  who  are 
not  quite  satisfied  with  the  moral  bearing  of  Christ's  per- 
mission to  the  demons  to  enter  an  immense  herd  of  swine 
and  drown  them  in  the  sea ;  who  hang  in  suspense  concern- 
ing the  great  moral  design  manifested  by  cursing  and  wither- 
ing the  fig-tree.  Now  what  has  Mr.  N.  to  say,  to  satisfy  these 
doubters  ?  Whatever  it  may  be,  it  will  at  least  be  as  easy 
to  say  the  like  things,  in  order  to  satisfy  our  minds  respect- 
ing many  miracles  related  in  the  Old  Testament  which  he 
rejects  with  scorn. 

Some  persons,  in  a  state  of  mind  quite  different  from  that 
of  Mr.  N.,  or  of  those  who  are  filled  with  doubts  about  the 
miracles  of  Christ  mentioned  above,  still  hesitate  to  decide  at 
once  on  the  matters  under  consideration,  and  therefore  in- 
quire, and  cautiously  and  candidly  examine.  It  is  quite  possi- 
ble to  suppose,  that  there  are  men,  who  after  having  done  all 
this,  are  not  entirely  satisfied  with  the  reasons  alleged  for  de- 
fending the  reality  of  these  miracles,  (I  mean  so  far  as  their 
intellectual  judgment  is  concerned),  while  at  the  same  time, 
they  remove  all  real  stumbling  blocks  from  their  way,  by  the 
consideration,  that  there  may  have  been  ends-  accomplished, 
or  may  be  ends  to  be  accomplished,  by  some  miracles,  of 
which  they  are  not  aware.  They  are  conscious  that  their 
knowledge  is  imperfect,  and  that  to  decide  with  confidence 
against  the  truth  of  such  narrations  as  relate  the  miracles  in 
question,  while  all  around  is  admitted  to  be  credible  and  true, 
would  be  like  to  deciding  that  the  black  spots  which  have  re- 
cently appeared  in  such  numbers  upon  the  face  of  the  sun, 
2* 


18  §  1.   INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

do  not  in  reality  belong  to  that  body,  because,  as  they  ap- 
prehend, it  can  be  nothing  but  a  uniform  blaze  of  glory. 

To  me  this  state  of  mind,  however  undesirable,  presents  a 
mucli  more  cheering  aspect  than  that  of  Mr.  N.,  or  of  his 
bolder  liberal  brethren.  My  experience  has  taught  me 
something  in  relation  to  such  subjects.  In  the  early  part  of 
my  bibhcal  studies,  some  30 — 35  years  ago,  when  I  first  be- 
gan the  critical  investigation  of  the  Scriptures,  doubts  and 
difficulties  started  up  on  every  side,  like  the  armed  men 
whom  Cadmus  is  faoled  to  have  raised  up.  Time,  patience, 
continued  study,  a  better  acquaintance  with  the  original  scrip- 
tural languages,  and  the  countries  where  the  sacred  books 
were  written,  have  scattered  to  the  winds  nearly  all  these 
doubts.  I  meet  indeed  with  difficulties  still,  which  I  cannot 
solve  at  once  ;  with  some,  where  even  repeated  effiDrts  have 
not  solved  them.  But  I  quiet  myself  by  calling  to  mind, 
that  hosts  of  other  difficulties,  once  apparently  to  me  as  for- 
midable as  these,  have  been  removed,  and  have  disappeared 
from  the  circle  of  my  troubled  vision.  Why  may  I  not  hope, 
then,  as  to  the  difficulties  that  remain  ?  Every  year  is  now 
casting  some  new  light  on  the  Bible,  and  making  plain  some 
things  which  aforetime  were  either  not  understood,  or  were 
misunderstood.  Why  may  not  my  difficulties  be  reached  by 
some  future  progressive  increase  of  light  ?  At  least,  in  the 
revolution  of  the  sun,  the  dark  spots  will  sooner  or  later  dis- 
appear. And,  what  is  more  than  all  considerations  of  this 
kind — speedily  the  whole  v;ill  be  known.  In  the  light  of 
heaven  no  darkness  is  intermingled.  Soon  the  anxious  and 
devoted  inquirer  after  truth,  will  if  a  true  Christian,  enjoy 
the  opportunity  of  asking  the  v.riters  themselves  of  the 
books  of  Scripture,  what  they  intended,  and  what  they  de- 
signed to  teach.  It  is  good,  I  do  believe,  both  to  hope  and 
patiently  wait  for  the  light  of  eternal  day,  if,  after  all  our 
efforts  to  clear  up  a  few  difficulties  in  Scripture  that  remain, 
we  do  not  succeed  to  our  utmost  wishes. 

Mr.  N.  evidently  regards  those  who  discard  all  revelation, 
as  unbelievers.     He   speaks  apparently  with  much  feeling 


§tl.    INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  19 

concerning  them.  I  believe  that  he  has  given  them  an  ap- 
propriate place,  in  the  category  of  religions  names.  The 
most  liberal  party,  (who  seem  hardly  to  have  acquired  a  dis- 
tinctive name  yet,  but  probably  would  not  dislike  that  of  Ra- 
tionalists), begin  with  a  very  simple  process  in  the  way  of 
reasoning.  I  have  it  before  me,  in  a  letter  from  one  of  the 
first  philologists  and  antiquarians  that  Germany  has  produ- 
ced. It  is  this :  '  The  laws  of  nature  are  merely  develop- 
ments of  the  Godhead.  God  cannot  contradict,  or  be  incon- 
sistent with,  himself.  But  inasmuch  as  a  miracle  is  a  con- 
tradiction of  the  laws  of  nature,  or  at  the  least  an  inconsis- 
tency with  them,  therefore  a  miracle  is  impossible.' 

Now  this  is  very  short,  and  simple,  and  intelhgible.  At 
least  we  know  what  the  writer  means  who  says  this.  But 
how  it  can  be  proved,  that  the  God  who  constituted  the  laws 
of  nature  as  the  usual  way  and  method  of  his  operations,  is 
not  at  liberty  to  depart  from  these,  for  the  sake  of  ends 
which  he  judges  important ;  or  how  it  can  be  proved  that  he 
has  not  done  so ;  is  what  I  am  not  able  to  show  or  explain. 

]VIr.  N.  calls  all  such  reasoning  shallow  philosophy.  I  as- 
sent. But  what  is  the  philosophy,  which  leaves  us  to  select 
according  to  the  measure  of  our  light,  our  own  personal  feel- 
ings, and  our  wishes,  a  part  of  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  of  the  New,  and  reject  all  the  rest  ?  In  other  words  : 
Is  a  revelation  to  prescribe  to  us,  or  we  to  the  revelation  ? 
This  is  the  simple  question,  divestedof  all  the  drapery  thrown 
around  it  in  order  to  conceal  its  real  form  and  lineaments. 
Such  is  evidently  the  position  of  Mr.  Norton.  I  would  not 
speak  with  any  disrespect  or  unkindness  ;  but  I  cannot  help 
the  feeling,  that  Mr.  N.  never  travels  on  Scripture  ground 
without  furnishing  himself,  like  some  careful  surgeons,  with 
weapons  adapted  to  probing  and  excision.  He  is  ever  ready 
to  employ  them,  and  prepared  to  sever  a  limb  supposed  to  be 
withered,  or  a  seeming  excrescence,  from  the  sacred  body  of 
the  Scriptures,  old  or  new. 

Does  not  Mr.  N.,  moreover,  give  up,  yea  strenuously  oppose 


20  §  1.   INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  or  certainly,  at  least, 
of  eternal  punishment  ?  Now  if  this  position  of  his  is  true, 
of  what  great  consequence  can  he  deem  it,  whether  the  New 
Testament  is  believed  or  disbelieved  ?  For,  in  the  first  place, 
who,  on  his  ground,  can  draw  the  line  in  all  cases  between 
what  we  are  to  believe,  and  what  we  are  to  reject?  Then, 
in  the  second  place,  if  the  doctrine  of  all  future  punishment 
of  sin  is  rejected,  no  wise  man  can  deem  it  of  importance  to 
give  himself  any  solicitude  about  religion. 

It  would  surely  be  a  curious  phenomenon  in  the  religious 
world,  and  a  matter  of  no  small  importance  to  the  uninitiated, 
should  Mr.  N.  publish  an  expurgated  edition  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, both  New  and  Old,  and  let  the  public  know  what  true 
and  reasonable  Christianity  (as  estimated  by  him)  demands 
and  expects  of  us.  Or  if  he  would  even  republish  selections 
from  some  Catechism,  say  the  Racovian,  with  additions  and  al- 
terations suited  to  these  enlightened  days,  might  he  not  do  a 
great  service  to  the  cause  of  liberal  Christianity  ?  To  me, 
however,  at  present  it  seems,  that  Mr.  N.  has  a  very  brief 
creed,  which  might  be  expressed  in  a  single  sentence,  namely : 
"  I  do  not  believe  what  the  Christian  churches  in  general  do 
believe." 

As  to  his  more  liberal  opponents  among  the  class  of  Lib- 
erals, I  have  but  a  word  to  say.  I  commend  their  honest  and 
open-hearted  course.  They  openly  and  avowedly  discard  all 
that  is  of  a  miraculous  nature,  and  by  consequence  all  the 
books  of  Scripture,  which  either  assert  things  of  a  miraculous 
nature,  or  are  built  upon  that  foundation.  As  the  popular 
saying  is  :  They  go  for  the  whole.  For  my  own  part  I  like 
this.  AYe  know  where  they  are,  and  where  we  have  to  meet 
them.  But  in  controversy  with  Mr.  N.,  we  never  know  on 
what  ground  we  are  treading.  "We  refer,  for  example,  to 
facts  or  declarations  recorded  in  the  Scripture,  in  order  to  il- 
lustrate or  confirm  any  position  that  we  have  taken.  But 
]VIr.  N.  meets  us  at  once  with  the  avowal,  that  he  does  not 
regai'd  that  fact  or  those  declarations,  appealed  to,  as  entitled 


§  1.    INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  21 

to  any  credit.  So,  we  have,  in  our  efforts  to  oppose  him,  all 
the  while  been  merely  sowing  to  the  wind,  and  at  last  must  of 
course  reap — no  very  promising  harvest. 

Some  of  the  high  Liberals,  as  it  seems  to  me,  would  be 
Straussites  to  the  full  extent,  if  they  well  knew  what  Strauss  or 
Hegel  in  all  cases  really  maintains.  Alas  !  there  are  few  heads, 
among  us,  from  which  spring  the  prominences  appropriate 
to  making  such  a  discovery.  Thus  much,  however,  these  Lib- 
erals seem  to  themselves  to  understand,  and  thus  much  they 
maintain,  viz.,  that  God  is  an  impefS07ial  being,  the  ro  rtdv 
of  the  Universe ;  and  that  he  develops  personality  only  in 
rational  beings,  and  for  a  little  season  at  a  time.  In  the  mean- 
while the  argument  against  miracles,  which  has  been  stated 
above,  is  fully  admitted  by  them,  and  the  Scriptures  are 
brought  before  its  tribunal.  But  here  I  must  demur.  If  the 
Godhead  is  an  impersonal  and  unconscious  being,  as  they  as- 
sert, then  how  can  it  be  impossible  that  the  laws  of  nature 
should  change  ?  If  there  be  no  mind,  and  no  almighty  pow- 
er to  direct  and  secure  the  natural  order  of  things,  what  hin- 
ders these  things  from  developing  themselves  in  different 
ways  ?  Why  may  they  not  assume  every  shape,  and  go  one 
way  as  well  as  another  ?  What  is  it  which  renders  secure 
and  constant,  the  uniformity  of  things  ? 

But  I  must  desist,  or  I  shall  intrench  upon  the  main  ob- 
ject of  my  book.  I  cannot  conclude  these  introductory  re- 
marks, however,  without  saying,  that  so  far  as  I  know,  all 
who  sympathise  with  me  in  their  theological  views,  feel  much 
better  satisfied  with  the  honest  and  open  avowal  of  the  high 
Liberals,  than  with  the  ambiguous,  reserved,  non-committal 
creed  of  the  more  moderate  class  of  Liberalists.  The  High 
Liberals  or  Rationalists  are  willing  to  stand  before  the 
world  in  the  character  which  they  really  sustain.  I  do  not 
think  the  same  can  be  said  with  truth  of  their  shrinking  and 
non-committal  brethren. 

In  canvassing  the  subject  of  the  ancient  Jewish  Canon  of 
Scripture,  it  is  not  my  design  to  exhibit  a  mere  skeleton  of 
the  subject.     It  is  not  with  the  view  of  answering  merely 


22  §  1.    INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS. 

what  Mr.  Norton  lias  said  respecting  the  Jewish  Canon,  that 
I  have  been  induced  to  take  up  my  pen.  I  feel  as  one  may 
be  naturally  supposed  to  feel,  who  has  spent  his  life  in  the 
instruction  of  youth,  i.  e.  I  feel  a  strong  desire  to  communi- 
cate something  on  this  important  subject,  if  it  be  in  my  pow- 
er, which  may  aid  young  theologians  in  forming  more  satis- 
factory and  well  grounded  opinions  about  the  extent  and  au- 
thority and  obligation  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  I 
desire  to  spe  ak  of  the  labours  of  others  before  me,  in  regard 
to  this  matter,  with  all  proper  respect  and  deference  ;  but  is 
it  too  much  to  say,  that  we  have  in  English  no  book  on  this 
subject,  which  is  sufficiently  historico-critical  to  answer  in  a 
satisfactory  manner  all  the  present  demands  on  sacred  litera- 
ture ?  If  there  be  such  an  one,  it  is  unknown  to  me.  At 
least  I  know  thus  much,  viz.,  that  for  years  I  wandered  in 
the  dark  in  relation  to  this  matter,  not  being  satisfied  with 
the  evidence  before  me,  and  not  knowing  where  to  go  for  better 
views.  If  I  do  not  wholly  mistake  the  true  state  of  the  case, 
there  is  a  great  number  of  pastors  in  our  country  in  the  same 
predicament.  All  young  students  in  theology  must  of  course 
be  somewhat  in  the  same  predicament.  It  is  an  unpleasant 
one.  The  mind  hesitates  not  only  as  to  what  kind  of  reliance 
to  place  on  certain  books,  at  least,  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
also  as  to  what  relation  the  Avhole  bears  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  regard  to  authority  and  obligation.  The  use  which 
should  be  made  of  much  of  the  Old  Testament  must,  in  this 
state  of  the  mind,  necessarily  become  a  matter  of  doubt  and 
perplexity. 

My  present  object  is,  to  aid,  if  it  be  within  my  power,  in 
the  removal  of  a  part  at  least  of  these  difficulties.  I  design  to 
produce  the  evidence  that  may  be  gathered  from  antiquity, 
as  to  the  extent  of  that  Canon  of  Scripture  which  our  Saviour 
and  his  apostles  regarded  and  appealed  to  as  divine  and  ob- 
ligatory. If  this  was  the  Canon  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
as  then  received  by  the  Jews  in  general ;  and  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  this  Canon  was  the  same  which  is  now  comprised 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  -,  then  the  doubts  and  difficulties 


§  1.   INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS.  23 

which  many  entertain  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  in 
respect  to  some  parts  of  it,  may  be  removed.  The  authority 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles  to  determine  such  a  matter,  should 
not  be  called  in  question ;  I  would  even  say,  cannot  be  con- 
sistently called  in  question,  by  any  one  who  professes  to  be  a 
Christian. 

Some  things  have  been  presented  to  my  notice,  in  the 
course  of  the  reading  and  reflection  through  which  I  have 
passed  in  order  to  prepare  for  writing  the  present  treatise, 
which  do  not  seem  to  me  to  have  been  adequately,  or  in 
some  respects  correctly,  developed  in  the  pages  of  the  lead- 
ing writers  on  the  subject  .of  the  Old  Testament  Canon. 
Things  absolutely  new,  I  do  not  promise  to  bring  before  the 
reader.  But  there  are  some  things,  that  have  been  noticed 
by  even  the  more  thorough  investigators,  which  ought  in  jus- 
•  tice  to' be  placed  in  a  new  attitude,  in  order  that  they  should 
be  seen  in  their  true  light.  Something  of  the  task  of  doing 
this,  I  would  hope  to  perform.  One  thing  at  least  will  be 
achieved  by  the  present  work,  if  it  does  not  miss  its  mark  ; 
and  this  is,  the  presenting  in  a  body,  and  regularly  disposed, 
the  evidence  extant  respecting  the  Old  Testament  Canon, 
accompanied  by  a  historico-critical  examination  of  the  same. 
The  reader,  if  this  shall  be  done,  will  at  least  have  the  mate- 
rial before  him,  out  of  which  he  can  make  up  his  own  opin- 
ion. 

I  shall  not  advance  to  the  consideration  of  this  subject  by 
taking  the  attitude  of  one  who  assumes  the  point  to  be  prov- 
ed, and  then  pours  forth  monitions  or  comminations  upon  all 
who  may  even  seem  to  doubt.  For  the  present,  I  take  my 
leave  not  only  of  Calvinists  and  Unitarians,  but  of  all  the 
sects  in  Christendom,  yea  even  of  theology  itself,  in  its  tech- 
nical sense,  and  aim  to  act  merely  the  part  of  a  historical 
inquirer,  who  applies  to  the  appropriate  sources  of  informa- 
tion, and  endeavours  in  this  way  to  find  out  what  he  ought  to 
believe.  This  is  the  first  step.  The  demands  of  intellect 
and  reason  must  be  met,  in  order  to  satisfy  a  reasonable 


24  §2.   DEFINITION   OF    CANON. 

being.     Then  comes,  in  proper  order,  the  application  of  re- 
sults thus  won  to  the  conscience  and  to  the  heart. 


§  2.  Dejinition  of  Canon. 

The  meaning  of  this  Greek  word,  (for  such  it  is,  viz. 
y.av(6v)^  as  now  employed  by  our  churches  in  reference  to  the 
Scriptures,  hardly  needs  an  explanation.  It  is  employed  as 
designating  that  list  or  collection  of  bookis,  either  of  the  Old 
Testament  or  of  the  New,  which  we  are  accustomed  to  re- 
gard as  sacred  or  inspired,  or  of  divine  authority.  But  it 
was  not  always  so  employed,  in  ages  that  are  past;  and  the 
inquirer  needs  to  be  put  on  his  guard,  with  respect  to  the  va- 
rious uses  of  this  word  in  ancient  times. 

In  classical  Greek,  the  original  meaning  of  'Aavojv  is 
straight  stick  or  rod,  staff,  measuring-rod  or  pole,  beam  of  a' 
balance,  etc.  Hence  tropically,  rule,  norma ;  thence  law, 
prescription,  fundamental  or  guiding  principle.  Among  the 
Alexandrine  Greek  gi-ammarians,  y.av(^v  was  employed  to 
denote  a  list  or  collection  of  ancient  Greek  authors,  who 
would  serve  as  models  or  exemplars  for  other  writers.  It 
meant  what  we  should  call  classical  writers. 

One  sees  very  readily,  how  this  succession  of  derivat^ 
meanings  sprang  from  the  original  sense  of  the  word.  The 
literal  idea  of  rod,  measuring-rod,  meas2ire,  was  applied  tro- 
pically to  whatever  was  a  rule,  guide,  model,  or  exemplar,  of 
conduct  or  of  actions,  of  art  or  of  science.  The  Alexan- 
drine grammarians  employed  the  word  in  a  sense  so  kindred 
to  that  which  we  now  give  it,  that  the  mind  of  every  one 
must  be  struck  by  the  resemblance.  Those  books  which 
are  the  rule,  measure,  law,  exemplar,  of  a  moral  and  pious 
life,  are  the  canonical  books  of  the  Scriptures,  according  to 
the  present  usage  of  this  word. 

Among  the  Christian  fathers  the  word  canon  obtained  an 
enlarged  and  sometimes  a  technical  sense.  It  was  sometimes 
used  to  designate  a  list  or  catalogue  of  the  clergy  or  of  other 


§  2.    DEFINITION    OF    CANON.  25 

persons  belonging  to  a  church  ;  a  list  of  psalms  and  hymna 
appropriate  for  public  worship ;  and  even  a  list  of  furniture 
belonging  to  a  church,  etc.  Very  naturally  it  came  to  be 
employed  to  designate  a  list  of  the  scriptural  hooks  which  were 
publicly  read  in  the  churches.  It  was  not,  however,  until 
the  third  century,  that  these  usages  of  the  word  commenced, 
or  at  least  became  common. 

Readers  of  the  present  day,  in  perusing  the  testimony  of 
many  of  the  ancient  fathers  and  councils  respecting  the  canon 
of  Scripture,  often  make  great  mistakes  as  to  the  meaning 
and  force  of  the  testimony.  It  is  a  fact  which  lies  on  the 
face  of  ancient  church  history,  that  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century,  and  more  in  the  third  and  fourth,  other  books 
besides  those  which  were  regarded  as  properly  inspired,  w^ere 
read  more  or  less  in  the  churches.  With  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament,  which  the  Oriental  and  African 
churches  everywhere  made  use  of,  was  early  intermingled 
more  or  less  of  the  books  which  we  now  name  apocryphal^ 
and  which  for  the  most  part  were  written  in  Greek,  and  not 
long  before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era.  The 
leading  reasons  for  mixing  these  recent  productions  with  the 
books  of  the  Hebrews,  seem  to  have  been  the  following* ; 
first,  they  were  mostly  written  by  Jews,  as  the  tenor  of  them 
demonstrates  ;  secondly,  they  were  of  a  religious  cast,  and 
parts  of  them  were  adapted  to  useful  instruction,  while  other 
parts  communicated  narratives  of  some  interest,  whether 
considered  in  the  light  of  history  or  of  allegory.  But  be 
this  as  it  may,  the  Christian  churches,  at  least  many  of 
them,  in  the  third  century  and  onward,  admitted  a  number  of 
the  apocryphal  books  to  be  publicly  read  along  with  the 
Jewish  Scriptures.  Now  when  the  word  canonical  was  ap- 
plied in  such  a  sense  as  to  designate  merely  the  books  whicK 
were  publicly  read,  the  canonical  hooks  of  the  Old  Testament^ 
for  example,  would  mean  not  only  the  Jewish  Scriptures,. but 
also  such  of  the  apocryphal  books  as  were  combined  with 
them  in  the  Septuagint  Version,  and  were  publicly  read. 
3 


If  §2.    DEFINITION    OF    CANON. 

But  to  say  that  a  book  was  canonical,  and  to  say  that  it  wa9 
inspired.,  at  that  period  and  when  this  usage  prevailed,  was 
saying  two  very  different  things.  There  might  be  (and 
were)  inspired  books  which  were  not  publicly  read ;  e.  g. 
such  as  the  Apocalypse  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
Canticles  of  the  Old  Testament.  On  the  other  hand,  sev- 
eral books  not  inspired  were  included  in  the  reading  canon 
of  the  day,  i.  e.  in  the  list  of  books  publicly  readable ;  e.  g. 
1  Maccabees,  2  Maccabees,  Sirach,  Wisdom  of  Solomon, Tobit, 
Judith,  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  the  Epistle  of  Clemens  Ro- 
manus,  the  Revelation  of  Peter,  etc.  In  regard  to  this  matter, 
viz.  the  extent  of  the  canon  or  list  of  books  to  be  publicly  read 
for  profit,  there  was,  for  a  long  time.,  no  fixed  rule  among  the 
churches.  Each  seems  to  have  done  what  was  right  in  its 
own  eyes.  It  was  not  until  the  fourth  century,  that  Coun- 
cils interfered,  and  limited  the  number  of  books  to  be  read  in 
the  churches.  And  these  decided  differently,  as  any  one 
may  see  by  reading  the  accounts  of  the  Council  at  Laodicea, 
at  Hippo,  at  Carthage,  at  Rome  under  Gelasius,  and  else- 
where, as  given  by  Mansi,  in  his  great  work  Sanctorum  Con- 
ciliorum  nov.  et  ampliss.  Gollectio,  particularly  in  Tom.  I. 
III.  VIII.  Indeed,  in  order  to  read  these  records  of  ancient 
times  inteUigibly,  one  must  keep  in  mind  what  Jerome  says, 
at  the  end  of  his  enumeration  of  the  books  of  the  Hebrew 
canon,  in  his  Prologus  Galeatus.  After  naming  the  books  in 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  (the  same  which  we  now  reckon  as 
belonging  to  them),  he  goes  on  to  say  :  "  Whatever  is  not 
included  among  these,  is  to  be  placed  among  the  apocryphal 
books/'  [i.  e.,  in  his  idiom,  among  the  uninspired  books']. 
After  particularizing  various  apocryphal  works,  he  adds : 
"  One  reads  them  in  the  church,  but  he  does  not  receive  them 
among  the  canonical  Scriptures.  .  .  .  They  may  be  read  to  the 
edification  of  the  people,  but  not  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing ecclesiastical  doctrines'^  Jerome  here  plainly  employs 
canonical  in  the  sense  of  inspired ;  contrary  to  the  common 
usage  of  the  preceding  century.     And  from  what  he  says,  it 


§  2.    DEFINITION    OF    CANON.  27 

is  plain  that  books  for  edification  were  read  in  the  churches, 
for  which  no  claims  of  inspiration  were  made,  and  which 
could  not  establish  any  religious  doctrine. 

We  often  see  quotations  made  from  the  fathers  and  from 
the  decrees  of  councils,  in  order  to  show,  that  there  was  no 
prevailing  and  fixed  belief  in  the  ancient  churches  respect- 
ing the  definite  number  of  books  which  are  to  be  considered 
as  belonging  to  the  Scriptures.  How  easy  to  commit  impor- 
tant errors  in  relation  to  this  subject,  if  one  does  not  know 
the  various  uses  of  the  word  canon  !  To  show  that  a  book 
belongs  to  the  canon,  i.  e.  was  publicly  readable,  is  not  to 
show  that  it  was  even  regarded  as  inspired  ;  less  still  will  it 
show  that  it  was  in  fact  inspired ;  on  the  other  hand,  to  show 
that  any  book  was  omitted  or  excluded  from  the  canon,  i.  e. 
was  not  publicly  read,  is  showing  nothing  to  disprove  its  in- 
spiration. 

As  this  is  a  matter  of  high  importance,  I  would  not  deal 
in  assertions  without  adequate  proof.  What  Jerome  says, 
goes  directly  to  show  that  many  books  were  publicly  read, 
which  were  not  at  all  regarded  by  the  churches  as  sources  of 
appeal  in  cases  where  doctrines  were  to  be  established.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  case  of  Philastrius  of  Brixia,  the  inti- 
mate friend  of  Ambrose,  near  the  close  of  the  fourth  century, 
illustrates  and  confirms  what  I  have  said  concerning  books 
not  publicly  read,  and  yet  admitted  to  be  inspired.  In  his 
book  De  Haeresihus,  c.  88,  he  exhibits  a  catalogue  of  canon- 
ical books,  i.  e.  books  which,  as  he  says,  ought  to  be  read  in 
the  church,  in  which  is  found  neither  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, nor  the  Apocalypse.  Yet  in  c.  60  he  says,  that 
"they  are  heretics  who  do  not  receive  the  Apocalypse,  and 
that  they  have  no  understanding  of  the  excellence  and  dig- 
nity of  this  writing."  In  c.  88  the  same  writer  speaks  of 
Scripturae  adsconditae,  [i.  e.  Scriptures  apocryphal,  in  his 
sense  of  the  word,  viz.  not  to  be  publicly  produced],  "  which," 
he  says,  "  ought  to  be  read  for  moral  improvement  by  the 
perfect  [i.  e.  full  grown  Christians],  but  not  to  be  read  by 
all."     In  the  same  way  Gregory  Nazianzen  (0pp.  II.  p.  44) 


28  §  2.    DEFINITION    OF    CANON. 

says :  "  1  heard  John  the  Evangelist  enigmatically  saying 
to  such,  Iv  aTTOXQvq^cug,  [q.  d.  in  the  apocryphal  writings.)  i.  e« 
private  ones,  such  as  were  not  publicly  read].  I  would  thou 
wert  either  hot  or  cold,  etc."  Yet  this  same  writer  (Life  of 
Ephrcm,  III.  p.  GOl)  calls  the  Apocalypse  tj  rtlEvtma  Tijg 
l^iQiTog  ^i^log,  i.  e.  the  last  book  of  grace,  or  (in  other 
words)  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation.  Now  this  same 
Gregory,  (0pp.  II.  p.  98),  in  some  verses  reciting  the  books 
of  Scriptui-e,  omits  the  Apocalypse  at  the  end,  and  concludes 
his  verses  by  saying :  "  ndaag  s/Eig'  ei  ri  ds  lavzcov  ly.rog, 
ova  fV  yvTjaioig,  i.  e.  Thou  hast  all ;  if  there  be  any  besides 
these,  they  belong  not  to  the  genuine."  There  is  only  one 
way  to  solve  this  apparent  inconsistency,  and  that  is  by  ap- 
plying to  his  case  the  same  considerations  as  those  which  be- 
long to  that  of  Philastrius.  Gregory,  in  his  verses,  inclu- 
ded the  canonical,  i.  e.  publicly  readable,  books  only ;  in  the 
other  passages  he  gives  his  private  opinion  respecting  the 
true  character  of  the  Apocalypse. 

Nothing  is  plainer,  than  that  the  words  canonical  and  apoc- 
ryphal bear  quite  a  different  sense,  in  the  works  of  different 
fathers  and  councils,  in  different  ages  and  countries.  Atha- 
nasius  distributes  the  so-called  Scriptures  into  three  clas- 
ses of  books,  viz.  cauonical= inspired,  apochryphal=spurious 
or  deserving  rejection,  and  books  permitted  to  be  read  in  the 
churches ;  Epist.  ad  Ruiin.  Tom.  II.  p.  39  seq.  Rufinus 
himself,  a  contemporary  with  Jerome,  follows  the  same  clas- 
sification ;  see  in  0pp.  Cypriani,  p.  575.  After  specifying 
the  books  belonging  to  the  present  Protestant  canon,  which 
he  calls  ^a?iowzca/==inspired,  he  names  several  of  the  books 
belonging  to  our  present  ApocLrypha  together  with  the  Shep- 
herd of  Hermas  and  the  Judgment  of  Peter,  and  says  of  them, 
that  they  are  called  ecclesiastical,  and  "  are  to  be  read  in  the 
churches  (whence  their  name),  but  not  to  be  produced  as  au- 
thority in  matters  of  faith — non  tamen  proferri  ad  auctorita- 
tem  ex  his  fidei  confirmandam."  Other  books  which  have 
respect  to  religion,  but  are  not  to  be  read  in  the  churches,  he 
names  apocryp)haL 


§  2.    DEFINITION    OF    CANON.  29 

Jerome  makes  use  of  phraseology  a  little  different  from  this. 
In  the  famous  passage  of  his,  in  his  Prologus  Galeatus,  he 
specifies  the  same  Old  and  N.  Testament  books  which  are  now 
in  the  Protestant  canon,  and  then  adds,  that '  the  books  extra 
hos,  i.  e.  not  included  in  these,  are  to  be  ranked  among  the 
apocjiryphal,  and  are  not  in  the  canon.^  Then,  after  men- 
tioning several  of  the  books  in  our  present  Apoctrypha,  he 
adds,  respecting  some  of  them  :  "  The  church  indeed  reads 
them  [in  public],  but  does  not  receive  them  among  the  ca- 
nonical [inspired]  Scriptures [reads  them]  for  the  edi- 
fication of  the  people,  not  to  determine  matters  of  faith." 

Thus  it  is  perfectly  apparent,  that  no  one  can  read  the  ec- 
clesiastical fathers  or  the  decrees  of  ancient  councils,  on  the 
subject  of  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  rightly  understand 
and  appreciate  them,  without  narrowly  watching  the  use  of 
the  technical  terms  employed  in  describing  their  classification. 
Canonical  at  one  time  means  publicly  readable  ;  at  another, 
it  is  the  equivalent  of  inspired.  Apochryphal,  at  one  time, 
means  not  publicly  readable  ;  at  another,  it  is  the  equivalent 
of  uni7ispired,  destitute  of  binding  authority. 

Nor  does  this  different  usage  belong  exclusively  to  any  one 
age.  We  find  Origen  dividing  the  religious  books  of  his  day 
into  ca;z6»?izc«/=  in  spired,  and  apocryphal=uninspired  and 
(with  him)  unworthy  of  credit.  Afterwards  we  find  Eusebi- 
us  dividing  religious  books,  in  relation  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, into  (a)  'O^oXoyovfjievot,  i.  e.  the  genuine  and  acknow- 
ledged writings  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles,  (b)  Avtile- 
yofisvoi,  books  whose  genuineness  was  doubted  or  was  unset- 
tled, (c)  Nod-ai,  books  which  were  spurious,  i.  e.  were  not 
written  by  inpsired  men.  Besides  these  he  mentions  books 
arona  xai  dvaaE^rj,  stolid  and  impious. 

The  result  of  this  investigation  is  plain.  We  can  under- 
stand ancient  writers  only  by  watching  with  the  closest  scrutiny 
how  they  employ  the  words  canonical,  apochryphal,  ecclesias- 
tical, and  the  like,  and  for  want  of  so  doing,  many  a  glaring 
error  has  crept  into  the  works  of  some  even  recent  writers  on 
the  subject  of  the  canon.     Another  consequence  is  also  de- 

3* 


30  §  2.  DEFINITION   OF   CANON. 

ducible  from  our  premises,  viz.,  that,  if  we  mean  to  be  rightly 
understood,  we  must  define  and  uniformly  adhere  to  the  mean- 
ing which  we  give  to  the  words  canon  and  canonical. 

We  dismiss  the  subject  of  the  New  Testament  canon,  of 
course  ;  for  to  canvass  that,  is  not  our  present  business.  In 
respect  to  the  Old  Testament,  what  meaning  shall  we  as- 
sign to  the  phrase.  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  ? 

Shall  we  attach  to  the  word  canon  the  meaning  of  a  list  of 
hooks  that  were  publicly  read  in  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  in  the 
time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ? 

Before  the  Babylonish  exile  the  Jews  had  no  synagogues. 
Previous  to  that  time,  only  the  Law  of  Moses,  i.  e.  the  Pen- 
tateuch appears  to  have  been  read  once  a  year  in  the  tem- 
ple. After  the  return  from  exile,  and  the  erection  of  Syna- 
gogues, the  Law  of  Moses  was  read  in  them,  being  distribu- 
ted into  fifty-two  Parashoth  or  sections,  so  that  each  Sabbath 
in  the  year  might  have  its  due  proportion.  When  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  (171 — 164  B.  C.)  invaded  Judea,  abolished  the 
worship  of  the  temple,  and  commanded  all  the  copies  of 
Moses'  Law  which  could  be  found,  to  be  burned,  the  Jewish 
synagogue,  according  to  the  Rabbies,  made  selections  from 
Xhe prophets,  corresponding  to  t\\(t  parashoth  oH\\q  Pentateuch, 
which  they  called  Haphtaroth  (i.  e.  dismissions,  because  when 
the  reading  of  these  was  finished  the  people  were  dismissed 
to  their  homes,  see  'nijQ ,  to  dismiss),  and  which  were  read  in 
the  room  of  the  Law.  After  the  death  of  Antiochus,  the 
Jews  reintroduced  the  Law  with  its  Parashoth,  and  also  con- 
tinued the  reading  of  the  prophetical  Haphtaroth ;  which  is 
still  practised  by  them.  At  the  feast  of  Purim,  once  in  a  year, 
the  book  of  Esther  is  also  read.  If  we  should  extend  there- 
fore, the  Jewish  canon  only  to  the  books  which  the  Rabbies 
suppose  to  have  been  publicly  read,  our  list  would  comprise 
but  a  moderate  portion  of  the  books  which  were  regarded  as 
of  divine  authority.  Some  books  of  Scripture,  e.  g.  Canti- 
cles, and  the  first  and  last  eight  chapters  of  Ezekiel,  the  Jews 
did  not  permit  any  person  to  read,  even  in  private,  before  he 
had  attained  the  age  of  thirty  years.     Yet  they  did  not  deny 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  31 

the  divine  original  authority  of  these  dnoxQVipa.  We  can- 
not use  the  word  canonical,  then,  in  respect  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament books  in  the  apostolic  age,  in  the  sense  of  including 
only  the  books  publicly  or  privately  permitted  by  the  Jews  to 
be  read.  And  if  we  should  resort  to  the  Christian  fathers 
for  information,  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  Hebrew  canon, 
we  should  find  so  much  variety  in  the  use  of  the  word  Canon, 
and  such  different  usages  in  regard  to  the  religious  books  to 
be  publicly  read,  that  we  could  receive  no  assistance  from 
this  quarter. 

It  becomes  a  matter  of  necessity,  then,  that  we  should  fix 
upon  a  sense  of  the  word  canon  which  is  definite  and  intelli- 
gible ;  and  this  being  done,  we  must  uniformly  adhere  to  it. 
I  mean,  then,  by  the  Cano7i  of  Jewish  Scripture  in  the  apos- 
tolic «ge,  that  class  of  books  which  the  Jews  as  a  people  re- 
garded and  treated  as  sacred,  i.  e.  of  divine  origin  and  au- 
thority. This  agrees  with  the  present  general  usage  of  the 
churches,  as  to  the  words  in  question,  and  therefore  will  occasion 
no  embarrassment  and  no  mistake  in  regard  to  phraseology. 

The  word  canon,  I  would  remark  at  the  close,  seems  not 
to  have  been  in  use,  in  its  technical  sense  as  applied  to  the 
Scriptures,  until  the  time  of  Origen.  No  trace  of  it  can  be 
found  in  the  second  century.  In  his  Prol.  ad  Cant.  Cantic, 
sub  fine,  Origen  employs  it ;  also  in  Schol.  ad  Matt.  27:  9  ; 
in  a  sense  like  to  that  which  I  have  given  teuit. 

§  3.    Commencement  of  the  Canon, 

That  books  of  this  character  existed  among  the  Jews,  from 
the  time  of  Moses  down  to  a  period  of  some  extent  after  the 
return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity,  few  have  denied  ;  and 
none  have  been  able  to  show  the  contrary.  It  is  well  known, 
however,  among  critics  at  least,  that  the  Mosaic  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  has,  since  the  days  of  Semler,  been  called  in 
question  by  a  considerable  number  of  German  critics.  At  the 
time  when  Wolf  had  assailed  the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of 
the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  and  spread  far  and  wide  his  skepti- 


32  COMMENCEMENT   OF   THE    CANON. 

cism  on  this  subject,  the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  the 
Pentateuch  began  to  be  attacked  on  the  hke  grounds,  and 
about  the  time  of  Eichhorn's  death,  it  was  considered  by  the 
dominant  neological  party  in  Germany,  as  established  be- 
yond reasonable  contradiction,  that  the  Pentateuch  was  com- 
posed at  a  period  near  the  captivity,  or  perhaps  even  after 
the  return  from  it.  By  slow  degrees  the  thousand  years 
over  which  the  Pentateuch  was  made  to  leap,  in  order  to 
find  an  appropriate  birth-day,  began  to  be  diminished.  By 
and  by  it  was  felt  by  some  to  be  necessary  to  assign  a  date 
for  it  which  was  antecedent  to  the  time  when  a  copy  of  the 
Law  was  found  by  Hilkiah  the  priest,  in  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
B.  C.  624.  Of  late,  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch,  at  least  of 
a  large  portion  of  it,  has  receded  still  more,  even  back  to  the 
times  of  Solomon  or  David,  B.  C.  1000-1040.  Lately  it  seems, 
in  part,  to  have  made  another  retreat,  viz.  to  the  time  of  the 
Judges,  or  possibly  even  of  Joshua.  Such  I  take  to  be  the 
view  of  Ewald  and  Tuch,  and  also  of  some  other  distinguish- 
ed German  critics.  The  next  step  may  possibly  be  to  a 
period  of  time  which  puts  the  whole  matter  in  statu  quo. 
But  be  this  as  it  may,  1  must  take  for  granted  the  fact  now 
more  generally  acknowledged,  that  at  least  some  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch  were  committed  to  writing  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
I  cannot  indeed  even  conceive  how  the  most  important  laws 
of  the  Mosaic  institution,  how  the  Levitical  ritual  in  all  its 
minutiae,  how  the  sketch  of  the  tabernacle  to  be  built  with  all 
its  apparatus,  and  the  account  of  it  as  built  and  provided 
with  such  apparatus,  should  have  failed  to  be  committed  to 
writing.  The  ten  commandments,  from  their  importance, 
would  naturally  be  engraved  on  some  permanent  material. 
The  other  two  classes  of  composition  just  mentioned,  are  of 
such  a  nature,  that  no  memory  could  be  trusted  with  them. 
No  later  age,  in  case  these  minute  particulars  concerning  the 
tabernacle  had  not  been  early  designated,  yea  even  by  Moses, 
could  have  ever  dreamed  of  making,  and  palming  u[)on  the 
Jews  as  Mosaic,  such  representations  as  these.  JNo  subse- 
quent age  could  have  admitted  a  ritual  like  that  of  the  Jews, 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT  OF   THE  CANON.  33 

provided  it  was  introduced  long  after  the  death  of  Moses  and 
Aaron,  and  was  attributed  to  them.  It  is  not  possible  to  sup- 
pose, that  any  one  age  or  generation  after  Moses'  time,  could 
be  made  to  believe  that  things  which  they  had  never  before 
heard  of  in  connection  with  their  two  leaders,  and  things 
which  they  had  never  been  taught  to  practice,  originated  from 
them,  and  had  always  been  obligatory  on  the  Jews. 

After  the  protracted  and  vehement  contest  about  the  ori- 
gin and  antiquity  of  alphabetical  writing,  which  grew  out  of 
the  Homeric  Woljian  controversy,  and  extended  itself  to  sa- 
cred as  well  as  profane  books,  we  have  at  length  come  to  a 
result,  and  that  result  seems  to  be,  that  no  reasonable  doubt  can 
be  entertained,  that  the  origin  of  alphabetical  writing  among 
the  Egyptians,  Phenicians,  and  Greeks,  dates  far  back  before 
the  time  of  Homer.  The  Homeric  controversy  was  occasioned 
by  the  position  of  Wolf  in  his  Prolegomena,  which  was  that 
the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  are  full  of  interpolations  and  pro- 
bable abscissions,  and  that  they  owe  their  present  form  and 
order  and  unity  to  the  later  writers  of  Greece,  near  or  dur- 
ing the  time  of  Pisistratus.  To  make  this  probable,  it  was 
necessary  to  show,  that  the  poems  of  Homer  were,  for  sever- 
al centuries,  not  reduced  to  writing,  but  only  sung  by  chant- 
ers and  rhapsodists,  aoihoi  v,ai  Qaxfjqjdoi.  Of  course,  it  be- 
came in  a  manner  necessary  to  show,  that  the  art  of  writing, 
at  least  among  the  Greeks,  was  not  as  old  as  the  time  of 
Homer,  i.  e.  did  not  extend  back  to  about  1000  years  before 
the  Christian  era.  Every  nerve  has  been  strained  for  this 
purpose ;  while,  on  the  other  side,  have  recently  been  en- 
listed writers  of  the  highest  reputation.  Among  the  com- 
batants are  Wolf,  Heyne,  Herder,  Voss,  Kreu^er,  W.  Muel- 
ler, Hermann,  Nitzsch,  D.  C.  W.  Crusius,  and  others.  Nitzsch, 
in  his  Historia  Homeric  seems  to  have  made  an  end  of  the 
question,  whether  alphabetical  writing  is  as  old  as  the  time 
of  Homer.  This  is  now,  so  far  as  I  know,  generally  con- 
ceded. But  whether  alphabetical  writing  was  so  common 
at  the  time  of  Homer,  that  we  can  reasonably  suppose 
him  to  have  been  acquainted  with  it,  and  to  have  availed  him- 


34  §3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

self  of  it — that  is  a  question,  in  regard  to  which  no  incon- 
siderable number  of  critics  have  stood  and  still  stand  arrayed 
in  mutual  opposition. 

It  would  be  incongruous  for  me  to  turn  aside  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discussing  at  length  this  question.  Nevertheless,  it 
has  no  unimportant  bearing  on  the  question  which  is  now  be- 
fore us,  viz.,  At  what  period  shall  we  date  the  commencement 
of  the  Jewish  canon  ?  If  the  art  of  writing  was  not  in  use 
among  the  Greeks,  until  the  sixth  century  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  then  can  it  be  probable,  that  the  Hebrews,  less  lit- 
erary than  the  Greeks,  practised  it  before  that  period? 

It  is  not  essential,  indeed,  to  my  main  design,  to  show  when 
the  Pentateuch  was  written,  nor  even  hy  ivhom.  It  may  be 
a  book  worthy  of  all  credit,  if  written  by  some  other  hand 
than  that  of  Moses,  or  at  some  later  period.  If  Christ  and 
his  apostles  have  sanctioned  it  as  a  sacred  book,  the  main 
question  is  settled  for  us.  It  should  be  sacred  to  us,  as  well 
as  to  them. 

But  to  resume  the  subject  of  alphabetic  writing  among  the 
Greeks,  for  a  moment.  It  is  said  by  the  advocates  of  the 
Woljian  theory,  that  there  is  no  Greek  prose  writer  upon  re- 
cord before  the  Milesian  Cadmus  and  Pherecydes  of  Scyros, 
who  flourished  about  544  B.  C. ;  and  that  there  is  no  writer  of 
this  class  who  is  of  any  note,  until  the  time  of  Hecataeus  of 
Miletus  and  Pherecydes  of  Athens,  i.  e.  about  50  years 
later.  About  the  same  time,  that  is,  some  350  or  more  years 
later  than  the  time  of  Homer,  the  laws  of  Draco  were  re- 
duced to  writing,  and  these  are  said  to  have  been  the  first 
written  laws  ^mong  the  Greeks.  Is  it  probable,  then,  it  is 
asked,  that  the  poetry  of  Homer  was  reduced  to  writing  at  a 
period  some  350  or  400  years  earlier  ? 

But  on  the  other  hand,  we  may  well  ask :  Could  two 
poems,  one  of  about  16,000  and  the  other  of  more  than 
12,000  lines  or  verses,  be  brought  down  through  so  many 
centuries  by  mere  oral  and  traditionary  communication  ?  Ad- 
mitting even  that  there  are  a  few  interpolations  in  the  Iliad 
and  Odyssey,  yet  the  unity  and  order  of  these  poems  demon- 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OP   THE    CANON.  35 

strate  an  origin  from  the  same  author;  as  do  also  their  dia- 
lect and  circle  of  words  and  imagery.  How  could  so  much 
be  orderly  composed  by  any  man,  without  some  means  of 
consuhing  what  had  already  been  composed,  as  he  advanced 
in  his  work?  In  fact,  does  not  the  Iliad  itself  (Z.  168 — 9), 
by  its  aijfxarcc  XvyQo,  yQciU'ag  Iv  m'vaxt,  advert  to  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  Froetus  ?  At  any  rate,  this  gives  a  more  proba- 
ble sense  to  the  passage.  See  Trollope's  Note  in  loc.  Eu- 
ripides (Hec.  856  seq.)  makes  Hecuba  say :  "  Alas,  no  mor- 
tal is  free  !  For  he  is  either  the  slave  of  money,  or  of  for- 
tune ;  or  else  the  mass  of  the  city  or  written  laws  (v6{ig)v 
yQaq)ai)  coerce  him."  In  Hippol.  856  seq.  (ed.  Barnes.), 
the  same  Euripides  represents  Theseus  as  speaking  of  an 
epistle  or  tablet  (ds'lrog)  written  by  Phaedra  to  him  :  "  What 
then  is  the  meaning  of  this  appended  epistle  (dtXrog)  from 
her  dear  hand  ?  What  news  does  it  communicate  ?"  In  the  se- 
quel he  calls  this  dskzog  an  epistle  (IniaroXag  =  literas)  ; 
and  still  further  on,  he  names  it  dtlzog  again.  The  time 
when  Euripides  represents  Theseus  as  saying  what  has  been 
quoted,  was  some  80  years  before  the  Trojan  war.  In  his 
Iphigenia  in  Aulis  (1.  35  seq.),  he  makes  the  aged  messen- 
ger of  Agamemnon,  about  to  be  sent  with  a  letter  to  Clytem- 
nestra,  thus  address  this  king :  "  Thou  writest  (jndqjefg)  this 
letter,  which  thou  boldest  in  thy  hands,  and  again  thou  dost 
erase  these  letters  (yQayfjiaTa),  and  dost  seal  them,  and  then 
unseal  them,  and  cast  the  tablet  on  the  ground,  pouring  forth 
large  tears."  The  erasing  (avyyelg,  dost  intermingle)  of  the 
letters  seems  plainly  to  point  to  the  corrections  made  on  a 
waxed  tablet,  which  was  done  by  smearing  o^er  or  ming- 
ling {ovyx^ai)  the  wax.  Here  then  are  all  the  phenomena  of 
writing,  with  sealing  and  unsealing  of  the  letter.  And  most 
graphic  is  the  description ;  for  Agamemnon  is  writing  to  his 
wife  respecting  their  daughter  Iphigenia,  who  was  to  be  sa- 
crificed to  Diana,  in  accordance  with  the  direction  of  the 
prophet  Calchas.  He  had  already  sent  her  one  letter,  re- 
quiring Iphigenia  to  be  given  up.  Now  (1.  108  seq.)  he  says 
to  the  aged  messenger :  "  I  now  rewrite  in  this  letter  {dtXtov) 


36  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

what  is  proper  to  be  done,  which  you  old  man,  saw  me  by 
night  sealing  and  unsealing.  But  go  now,  taking  this  letter 
[t«?  imatoXag,  like  the  Latin  plur.  Hterae']  to  Argos.  What 
ever  this  letter  hides  in  its  folds — I  will  tell  thee  by  word  of 
mouth  all  which  is  written  in  it."  Several  times,  in  the  se- 
quel, is  the  same  letter  adverted  to ;  and  so  as  to  leave  no 
possible  doubt,  that  Euripides  describes  a  veritable  letter, 
(like  the  epistles  of  his  own  time),  folded  and  sealed  in  the 
same  way.^ 

*  In  like  manner,  Orestes,  the  son  of  Agamemnon,  is  represented  by 
Euripides  as  saying  to  Herinione :  "  I  came  hither,  rug  aaf  ov  fievtov 
Eina-o?.uc,  not  waiting  for  a  letter  from  you ;"  Andi-om.  1.  965.  Tliis,  of 
course,  is  jiist  at  the  close  of  the  Trojan  war.  In  Iphig.  in  Aul.  1.  307, 
the  aged  servant  says  to  Menelaus  :  "  Thou  must  not  open  the  letter 
(6i?.T0v)  which  I  beai'."  The  serv^ant  complains  to  his  master  Aga- 
memnon, that  Menelaus  "  had  by  violence  snatched  out  of  his  hands  the 
epistle"  {eTTLaroAug)  of  Agamemnon.  In  the  sequel  Menelaus  refers  to 
it,  and  calls  it  SeTirov.  In  Iphigen.  in  Taur.,  Iphigenia  speaks  of  trans- 
mitting "  a  Jettej'  (dfXrov),  wliich  a  captive  who  pitied  her  had  wi-itten  to 
her  friends."  In  the  sequel  she  says,  that "  she  had  no  one  by  whom  she 
could  send  her  epistle  (eTnaroXug).  And  again  she  speaks  of  "  no  mean 
reward  for  transmitting  her  light  letteis,'"  {kov(})o}v  ypa/^fiurcjv).  Orestes 
afterwards  tells  her  to  deliver  the  letter  (diz-ov)  to  a  particular  person  ; 
and  she  in  the  sequel  says  :  "  I  will  go,  and  carry  a  letter  {de/.rov)  from 
the  temple  of  the  goddess  ;"  and  again  (1.  640) :  "  I  Avill  send  to  Argos, 
paiticularly  to  my  friends,  a  letter  {(^e?.Tov)  which  will  tell  them,  etc." 
The  same  epistle,  (SeAtoc,  e7ZLaro7iai)  is  again  mentioned  in  1.  727,  732, 
and  in  734  she  calls  it  ypa(l>ug.  A  new  epistle  of  joyous  tidings  to 
Orestes  is  written  by  Iphigenia,  after  she  is  delivered  from  death  by 
Diana,  which  speaks  of  her  k-KiaroXai  as  containing  the  news,  "  even  the 
things  Avritten  kv  Se'AToiaiv.^^  Again  (1.  1446)  she  requests  Orestes  to 
inform  himself  -vyhat  that  is  which  is  in  her  letter,  ( eTnaTo^Ag) .  In  the  Bac- 
chae,  the  servant  of  Theseus  says  to  the  captured  Bacchus  :  "I  lead  thee 
captive,  kTrLoroAulr  by  the  [written]  mandate  of  Pentheus."  Pentheus  it  will 
be  recollected,  was  the  grandson  of  Cadmus,  who  lived,  it  is  supposed, 
nearly  1500  yeai's  B.  C.  The  same  word  (t-iaro/laf),  in  the  like  sense, 
occurs  in  Hel.  1. 1665.  As  to  MXrog,  besides  the  instances  already  adduced, 
see  in  Ilippol.  1.  877.  1057.  In  Iphig.  in  Aul.,  (including  some  instances 
produced  above),  we  find  6e'A.tov  in  1.  35.  109.  155.  307.  322.  891.  894. 
In  Iphig.  in  Taur.  584.  760.  603.  615.  635.  640.  667.  733.  756.  791.  Be- 
sides these,  several  instances  occur  in  the  Fragments  of  Emipides. 

In  all  these  ca^iCs,  let  it  be  called  to  mind  that  the  wiiter  is  speaking 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF    THE    CANON.  37 

The  simple  question  now  is,  whether  this  distinguished 
poet  would  have  made  out  such  a  description  as  this,  and  in- 
troduced Agamemnon  in  such  a  manner,  if  the  persuasion 
had  not  been  general,  and  even  universal,  at  his  time,  that 
the  art  of  writing  was  familiar  to  the  Grecian  chiefs  at  the 
siege  of  Troy.  One  cannot  well  bring  himself  to  attribute  a 
gross  anachronism  and  incongruity  to  such  a  writer. 

In  the  like  manner  Sophocles  (Trach.  157)  makes  Dejan- 
eira  speak  of  a  dsXzov  ytyQaiAiiivrjv  or  written  will  of  Hercu«- 
les,  in  favour  of  her,  when  he  left  her  house.  This  was 
some  time  before  the  Trojan  war.  In  Sophocles'  Antigone, 
he  makes  her  speak  of  the  ayQanra  Qtojv  v6fA.i[Aa,  in  contrast 
with  the  KrjQvyf^ara  of  Creon.  Does  not  the  nature  of  the 
contrast  here  presented,  allude  plainly  to  the  art  of  writing  ? 
And  would  these  two  consummate  poets,  distinguished  as 
much  for  their  knowledge  as  their  skill  and  taste,  commit 
such  an  anachronism  as  the  Wolfian  theory  would  make  them 
guilty  of?  Suppose  a  poet  of  Boston  should  write  a  tragedy 
founded  on  the  overthrow  and  death  of  one  of  the  native 
Indian  kings  in  this  country  some  five  centuries  ago,  and 
should  introduce  him  as  writing  letters  to  his  wife  ?  Would  a 
Boston  audience  endure  this  without  hissing  the  play  down  ? 

I  know  it  has  been  remarked,  in  the  way  of  answer  to  the 
argument  seemingly  deducible  from  this  in  favour  of  the  early 
discovery  of  alphabetic  writing,  that  the  poets  have  liberty  to 
feign  what  they  please,  in  making  out  the  fable  of  their  tra- 
gedies. But  I  am  persuaded  that  this  remark  must  be  limited 
to  bounds  which  forbid  absolute  and  palpable  incongruities. 
Very  extravagantly  and  unaccountably  the  actors  of  a  fabu- 
lous age  may  be  represented  as  demeaning  themselves,  and 
all  is  well ;  because  extraordinary  actions  are  expected,  and 
extraordinary  powers  of  performing  them  are  presupposed. 
But  this  is  something  exceedingly  diverse  from  evident  and 

of  persons  and  occurrencies  at  or  before  the  siege  of  Troj.  It  is  impos- 
sible therefore  to  resist  the  impression,  that  he  regarded  epistolary  cor- 
respondence as  a  tiling  then  well  kno^Yn  and  commonly  practised, 
certainly  among  persons  of  the  higher  rank. 


38  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

monstrous  incongruities  in  circumstantial  matters,  which  be- 
long not  to  persons  but  to  things.  There  would  not  be  a 
man  or  woman  in  a  Boston  audience,  present  at  the  exhibi- 
tion of  such  a  play  as  has  just  been  mentioned,  who  would 
not  in  an  instant  perceive  the  gross  incongruity  of  putting  the 
wild  Indian  chief  to  the  writing  of  letters  ;  and  who  would 
not  feel  that  the  author  of  the  play  was  stupidly  ignorant,  or 
else  destitute  of  all  taste,  or  silly  enough  to  believe  that  his 
audience  would  all  be  stupidly  ignorant.  I  aver,  then,  that 
the  familiar  and  often  repeated  usage  of  Euripides,  of  Sopho- 
cles, (and  even  of  Aeschylus),  in  introducing  epistolary  com- 
munication among  the  ancients  at  and  before  the  siege  of 
Troy,  implies  of  course,  a  like  belief  on  the  part  of  the  Athe- 
nian public,  who  were  so  sensitive  as  to  even  the  minutest 
things  in  a  player,  that  they  would  spontaneously  correct  a  false 
accent  or  a  wrong  quantity.  But  if  alphabetic  writing  began 
in  Greece  only  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century  B.  C, 
then  this  public  could  not  possibly  have  been  brought  to  the 
general  or  rather  universal  belief,  that  it  was  four  or  five  cen- 
turies older,  to  say  the  least ;  for  in  a  place  like  Athens,  there 
must  have  been  some  well  grounded  knowledge  in  respect  to 
such  a  matter.  The  common  usage  of  the  great  tragic  poets, 
in  the  introduction  of  epistolary  communication  among  remote 
ancients,  shows  with  certainty  what  the  public  sentiment  at 
Athens  was,  in  respect  to  this  matter.  And  how  can  any  one 
account  for  such  a  public  sentiment,  on  the  ground  that  writ- 
ing began  among  the  Grecians  only  in  the  sixth  century  ? 
This  would  be  far  more  difficult,  than  to  believe  that  the 
sentiment  was  grounded  upon  matter  of  fact  ? 

But  we  have  something  perhaps  more  definite  and  certain, 
than  these  allusions  in  the  great  poets.  Plutarch  (in  Ly- 
curg.),  Aelian  (Var.  Hist.  XIII.  4),  Dio  Chrysostom  (Orat. 
II.  p.  87),  Heraclides  of  Si  nope  (Gronov.  Thesaurus  Ant. 
Graec.  VI.  p.  2823),  all  testify  that  Lycurgus,  the  great 
lawgiver  of  Sparta,  brought  the  poems  of  Homer  from  Crete, 
where  he  met  with  them  among  the  posterity  of  Creophy- 
lus ;  which  latter  person  was,  (as  tradition  says),  a  son-in-law, 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  39 

or  teacher,  or  guest  of  Homer.  Plutarch  and  Aelian  both 
aver,  that  in  the  land  of  European  Greece,  previous  to  this 
period,  only  an  obscure  tradition  about  Homer's  poems  ex- 
isted, and  one  and  another  possessed  some  extracts  from  them. 
Lycurgus  employed  chanters  and  rhapsodists  to  recite  them 
to  his  people,  in  order  to  inspire  them  with  a  martial  spirit. 
Now  Lycurgus  lived  almost  nine  centuries  before  the  Chris- 
tian era ;  and  if  he  found  the  complete  poems  of  Homer  in 
writing,  and  copied  them,  (as  is  most  explicitly  affirmed  by 
the  historians  just  mentioned),  this  would  seem  to  settle  the 
question  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  written  works  of  Homer. 
Wolf,  Mueller,  and  others,  examine  this  testimony  adwico  na- 
so.  No  wonder ;  for  it  prostrates  the  fanciful  edifice  which 
they  have  reared.  But  Crusius  (Praef.  to  his  edit,  of  Muel- 
ler) has  given  the  subject  a  fair  investigation. 

The  appeal  to  the  so-called  Homeridae,  chanters.^  and  rhap- 
sodists., (doidoi,  Qaxpqjdoi)^  as  evidence  that  Homer's  poems 
must  have  been  diffused  and  preserved  for  a  long  time  inde- 
pendently of  writing,  is  not  at  all  conclusive.  The  Homeridae 
were  nothing  more  than  an  ancient  and  higher  class  of  rhap- 
sodists. The  chanters  and  rhapsodists  differed  only  in 
name,  and  perhaps  in  some  peculiarities  in  the  modes  of  re- 
citation or  recitativo.  All  were  the  vica-voce  reciters  of  Ho- 
mer ;  and,  in  the  earlier  times,  they  recited  without  the  im- 
mediate aid  of  manuscripts  in  the  act  of  recitation.  They 
wandered  from  place  to  place,  reciting  wherever  they  could 
find  encouragement  and  remuneration.  But  to  argue  from 
this,  as  many  critics  have  done,  that  Homer's  poetry  could 
not  at  the  same  time  have  existed  in  writing,  betrays  but  an 
indifferent  knowledge  of  the  customs  of  antiquity  and  spe- 
cially of  the  East.  The  mass  of  Greeks,  in  Europe  and  Asia, 
could  not  read  in  those  times.  The  price  of  manuscripts 
ample  enough  to  comprise  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  was  be- 
yond the  reach  of  any  but  the  rich.  Yet  the  Grecian  peo- 
ple were  of  a  romantic  and  poetic  turn  of  mind.  The  poems 
of  Homer  greatly  delighted  them.  Hence  the  profitable  em- 
ployment of  the  rhapsodists.     The  brief  and  popular  songs  of 


4p  §  3.    COMMENCEMEXT    OF   THE    CANON. 

times  more  ancient  than  the  age  of  Homer,  probably  were 
not  committed  to  writing,  but  were  diffused  and  preserved 
merely  by  oral  tradition.  They  were  sung  or  chanted  of 
course,  without  the  aid,  and  without  the  need,  of  any  written 
copy.  When  Homer  came  to  be  sung  in  like  manner,  and 
to  be  the  popular  poet  of  the  Greeks,  he  was  recited  without 
book.  This  gave  an  opportunity  for  the  rhapsodists  to  do, 
what  their  successors  in  office  still  do  in  Egypt  and  Persia 
and  other  countries  of  the  East,  that  is,  it  gave  opportunity 
to  act^  as  well  as  recite,  the  works  of  Homer.  This  was  a 
great  advantage  to  the  rhapsodists,  since  they  could  impart  a 
much  more  lively  interest  to  their  readers,  by  adopting  such 
a  method  of  exhibition. 

To  my  own  mind,  the  fact  that  there  were  chanters  and 
rhapsodists  of  Homer's  works,  soon  after  they  were  compo- 
sed, and  for  some  centuries  onward,  is  far  enough  from  proving 
that  these  works  were  not  reduced  to  writing.  Let  us  look 
at  experience  and  matters  of  fact.  The  Thousand  and  One 
Nights  of  the  Arabians  has  always  from  the  time  of  its  com- 
position been  in  writing,  as  all  agree  ;  for  it  is  a  production 
some  centuries  later  than  the  era  of  Mohammed.  Yet  in 
Persia  and  Egypt,  even  in  recent  times,  very  few  copies  of 
this  most  entertaining  and  truly  oriental  work  exist,  since 
neither  .of  these  nations  have  availed  themselves  of  the  art  of 
printing  ;  at  least  not  until  these  some  ten  years  past,  and 
now  only  to  a  small  extent.  Sir  John  Malcolm,  in  his  Notes 
on  Persia,  tells  us,  that  on  festal  occasions  and  at  levees,  at 
the  court  of  Persia,  the  chanters  or  rhapsodists  are  a  regular 
part  of  the  entertainment.  He  speaks  of  them  as  ready  to 
recite,  at  an  almost  indefinite  length,  the  Thousand  and  One, 
the  poems  of  Hafiz,  and  the  w^orks  of  other  distinguished  Per- 
sian writers,  and  as  being  employed  by  the  nobles  and  the  rich 
for  this  purpose.  He  describes  them  as  not  simply  reciting, 
but  acting.  Pie  tells  us  that  no  actor  on  the  stages  of  Lon- 
don or  Paris,  ever  played  his  part  more  significantly  and  sat- 
isfactorily. One  of  Sir  John's  attendants,  who  did  not  un- 
derstand Persian,  was  about  to  withdraw,  on  one  of  the  fes- 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF    THE    CANON.  -fl 

tal  occasions,  when  the  rhapsodist  rose  to  commence  his  exhi- 
bition. The  latter,  seeing  him  in  the  attitude  of  withdrawing, 
inquired  the  reason.  He  was  told,  that  it  was  because  he  did 
not  understand  the  Persian  language.  The  actor  replied, 
that  this  was  of  little  consequence  ;  for  he  would  make  him- 
self quite  intelligible  to  him,  notwithstanding  this.  The 
English  gentleman  remained,  and  the  actor  most  amply  re- 
deemed his  pledge. 

This  gives  us  an  instructive  view  of  the  interest  which  the 
rhapsodists  of  Homer  might,  and  probably  did,  impart  to  their 
recitations ;  and  shows  that  they  might  find  full  employ,  not- 
withstanding the  existence  ofMss,,^ 

The  case  is  the  same  in  Egypt.  Mr.  Lane,  in  his  admi- 
rable work  on  the  Modern  Egyptians,  has  given  us  a  full  ac- 
count of  their  rhapsodists.  The  most  numerous  class  of 
them  is  the  Sho'ara,  i.  e.  reciters  of  poetry,  of  which  there 
are  about  fifty  in  Cairo.  These  confine  themselves  to  the 
romance  of  Abu  Zeyd,  which  is  full  of  poetic  passages.  The 
prose  they  recite  with  measured  tone ;  the  poetry  with  ac- 
companying instrumental  music.  The  next  class  (about  thirty 
of  them  in  Cairo)  are  called  Mohadditeen,  i.  e.  Story-tellers ; 
who  recite  nothing  but  the  Life  of  Zahir,  a  romance  founded 
on  the  story  of  an  Egyptian  prince  who  bore  that  name.  It 
is  very  voluminous  and  expensive  ;  and  consequently,  a  know- 
ledge of  the  work,  such  as  it  is,  is  mainly  kept  up  by  the  viva 
voce  reciters.  There  is,  besides  these,  a  small  class  of  reciters 
of  Cairo,  who  are  called  Antereeyah,  in  consequence  of  recit- 
ing the  romance  of  Antar,  which  has  been  recently  transla- 
ted into  English.  Occasionally  this  class  of  persons  extend 
their  recitations  to  other  works. 

Such  then  are  the  oriental  modes  of  entertainment  in  the 
way  of  reading  or  recitation.  Where  the  great  mass  of  the 
population  are  unable  to  read  ;  where  printing  is  not  introdu- 
ced, and  the  price  of  Mss.  is  exceedingly  dear  ;  where  the  in- 
dolent habits  of  the  Turks,  Ai^abians,  and  Persians,  forbid  or  at 
least  dissuade  from  the  effort  necessary  to  read  a  book  ;  spe- 
cially where  a  book  needs  comment  and  explanation ;  rhapso- 
4* 


4%  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

dists  come  in  and  find  amj)le  and  profitable  employment.  So 
it  doubtless  was  in  Greece ;  so,  in  western  Asia  Minor. 

But  Mr.  Lane  states  one  fact  in  regard  to  these  rhapso- 
dists,  which  strikes  me  as  of  serious  import,  in  respect  to  the 
matter  before  ns.  Pie  says,  that  a  few  years  previous  to  his 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  the  romance  of  Seyf  Zul-l-Yezen  abound- 
ing in  tales  of  wonder,  and  the  Tliousand  and  One  Nights, 
were  the  subject  of  frequent  recitation.  But  as  these 
works  became  very  scarce  and  very  dear,  the  rhapsodists 
could  not  afford  to  purchase  them  in  order  to  prepare  for  re- 
citation, and  so  they  discontinued  the  practice.  These  last 
named  works  are  far  superior  to  the  others  which  are  now  re- 
cited, and  w^ould  be  preferred  by  the  people,  if  they  might 
have  them  presented.  But  this  cannot  be  done  for  the  rea- 
sons just  stated. 

This  throws  light  on  the  recitations  of  the  Homeric  rhap- 
sodists. Had  they  not  been  able  to  resort  to  some  Ms. 
copy  of  Homer,  to  refresh  their  memory,  or  to  store  it, 
they  could  never,  or  at  least  they  would  never,  have  brought 
down  two  poems  of  nearly  30,000  lines,  through  so  many 
centuries.  I  allow  that  the  force  of  memory  is  great,  even 
surprising,  where  a  man  of  talent  gives  himself  wholly  to 
the  cultivation  of  it.  Xenophon  expressly  asserts  (Sympos. 
III.  6),  that  there  were  several  persons  at  Athens,  in  his  time, 
who  could  repeat  memoriter  the  whole  of  the  Iliad  and  Odys- 
sey. So  among  the  Persians  and  Arabians,  there  has  been 
many  a  rhapsodist  who  could  repeat  the  whole  of  the  Thou- 
sand and  One  Nights,  or  other  works  of  equal  length.  But  af- 
ter all,  such  a  gift  is  occasional,  and  somewhat  rare.  On  a 
succession  of  such  persons,  so  as  accurately  to  transmit  the 
Iliad  and  Odyssey  dow^n  through  three  or  four  centuries,  one 
can  place  no  safe  dependence.  The  thing  is  incredible.  The 
Egyptian  and  Persian  rhapsodists  every  where  intermingle, 
with  what  they  recite,  so  much  of  their  own  compositions, 
both  in  poetry  and  in  prose,  as  may  serve  to  expand,  embel- 
lish, or  explain  their  author.  Often,  men  of  talents  among 
their  rhapsodists  become  so  excited  by  the  applause  of  their 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  4i 

audience,  that  they  improvise,  in  a  manner  that  exceeds  the 
originals.  So  it  cannot  have  fared  with  Homer ;  for  the 
present  state  of  his  works — so  Uttle  being  in  them  which  is 
incongruous  or  superfluous — demonstrates  \h2ii  improvisation 
has  not  wrought  sensibly  upon  them  by  additions  or  diminu- 
tions, and  of  course  that  they  can  never  have  been  long  sub- 
jected to  its  sole  influence. 

We  may  get  along  quite  well  as  to  oral  tradition,  when  it 
is  said  to  have  preserved  short  songs,  narrations,  allegories, 
or  fables,  independently  of  written  records.  But  to  think  of 
an  Iliad  and  an  Odyssey  being  preserved  for  centuries  sub- 
stantially inviolate,  in  this  manner,  requires  much  more  cre- 
dulity, than  it  does  to  believe  that  alphabetical  writing  exist- 
ed a  considerable  time  before  the  era  of  Moses.  At  least,  I 
cannot  bring  my  own  mind  to  a  state  of  doubt  or  hesitation 
in  regard  to  this  whole  matter. 

I  am  fully  aware  of  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  in  relation 
to  the  subject  of  ancient  alphabetic  writing  in  Greece.  In 
his  Contra  Apion.  I.  2,  he  draws  the  contrast  between  the 
antiquity  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  letters,  and,  as  might  natu- 
rally be  expected  from  a  Jew,  greatly  to  the  advantage  of 
the  latter.  He  says  that  even  the  Greeks  themselves  make 
their  boast  of  learning  their  letters  from  Cadmus  ;  that  they 
have  no  monumental  inscriptions  older  than  the  siege  of 
Troy ;  and  no  book  older  than  the  poetry  of  Homer.  In 
respect  to  this,  also,  and  whether  the  Grecians  at  the  siege  of 
Troy  were  acquainted  with  the  use  of  letters,  he  says  ques- 
tions have  arisen,  and  that  the  better  opinion  is,  that  the 
Greeks  who  destroyed  Ilium  were  ignorant  of  letters.  As  to 
Homer  he  says :  "  q]ao}v  ovdt  tovtov  iv  jQUfifA.aoi  tiiv  avzov 
Ttoiijaiv  xaTaXiTteiv,  dlXu  diafivijiiovEvoiiEViiv  ba  tmv  ao^idnov 
vaz8()ov  ovvze&fivai,  xai  dia  zovzo  tzoXXu's"  ^v  avzij  G)[eiv  zdg 
8ia(f)covta<i' '  i.  e.  they  say  that  this  one  [Homer]  did  not  leave 
his  poem  in  letters  [writing],  but  that  being  kept  in  remem- 
brance by  chanting,  it  was  subsequently  adjusted  (composed 
or  put  together),  and  that  it  was  because  of  this  that  so  many 
incongruities  were  found  in  it."     Such  was  the  impression 


44  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

which  Josephus  received  from  Greeks  with  whom  he  was 
conversant,  and  he  was  very  ready  to  receive  it,  because  it 
made  directly  for  the  support  of  his  opinion  in  favour  of  the 
greater  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  hterature.  But  we  learn 
from  him,  that  it  was  then  a  contested  question,  whether  the 
Greeks  who  besieged  Troy  were  acquainted  with  letters  ;  so 
that  on  the  face  of  his  testimony  it  appears  that  the  point  was 
regarded  as  a  doubtful  one.  We  have  seen,  however,  that 
Euripides  and  Sophocles  make  appeals  to  Athenian  audiences 
in  relation  to  this  subject,  about  four  centuries  before  the 
Christian  era,  which  leave  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to  what 
the  general  opinion  at  Athens  then  was. 

Josephus  by  using  avvts&ijvai  in  respect  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  Homer's  poems,  doubtless  has  reference  to  the  story 
so  often  repeated,  and  from  a  period  somewhat  before  the 
Christian  era  (Cic.  de  Orat.  HI.  34.  Pausan.  HI.  26.  Aelian. 
Var.  Hist.  XIII.  14),  viz.,  that  Solon,  and  specially  Pisistratus 
and  his  sons  the  Pisistratidae,  put  together  the  disjointed  and 
SibyUine  fragments  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  and  first  redu- 
ced them  to  writing,  as  well  as  to  unity,  regularity  and  order. 
All  the  rhapsodists,  as  the  story  goes,  far  and  near,  were  col- 
lected by  Pisistratus,  and  from  them  he  obtained  all  the  scat- 
tered fragments  of  the  epic  bard,  and  put  them  together  as 
well  as  he  could,  summoning  to  his  aid  all  the  literary  corps 
of  Athens.  So  much  of  all  this  is  doubtless  true,  namely,  that 
Solon  made  an  arrangement  of  the  parts  of  Homer,  which 
were  to  be  chanted  at  the  nava&/ivaia,  i.  e.  the  feast  of  Mi- 
nerva, which  was  held  once  in  five  years.  All  could  not  be 
then  sung,  and  Solon  decided  how  much  should  be  sung,  and 
in  what  order.  Pisistratus  and  his  son  Hipparchus  pushed 
criticism  much  further.  They  obtained  all  accessible  evi- 
dence of  what  belonged  to  Homer,  and  of  what  quality  it 
was,  and  arranged  the  result  in  the  best  manner  they  could. 
To  the  famous  Aristarchus  of  Samothrace  (fl.  B.  C.  200),  is 
generally  attributed  the  division  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey 
into  twenty-four  books  each. 

Such  is  the  sum  of  tradition,  in  regard  to  this  subject.    But 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  ^ 

that  letters  were  not  known  in  Greece  earlier  than  the  time  of 
Solon  and  Pisistratus,  (about  550  B.  C),  no  one  will  now 
credit,  since  the  publication  of  Nitzsch's  Historia  Homeri. 
But  how  much  the  Diaskeuastai  just  mentioned,  or  others 
after  them,  changed  the  text  or  the  order  of  Homer,  it  is  in 
vain  now  to  surmise.  The  internal  evidence  of  Homer's 
works  is  most  unequivocally  against  any  considerable  inter- 
polation. The  unity  of  his  poems,  their  dialect,  the  spirit  of 
all  the  parts,  (with  slight  exceptions),  show  a  unity  of  au- 
thorship, and  a  unity  of  purpose,  combined  with  a  plan  and 
a  regularity  which  could  not  arise  from  diverse  minds.  A 
man  might  as  well  say,  that  the  different  parts  of  a  watch 
were,  in  the  first  instance,  manufactured  by  different  persons 
without  any  concert;  and  that  being  accidentally  brought 
,  together,  they  all  perfectly  fitted  each  other,  and  made  a  true 
time-keeper,  which  all  succeeding  watch-makers  have  only 
imitated.  Who  would  believe  such  an  account  of  the  origin 
of  watches  ?  And  yet  it  is  even  more  credible,  than  the  fa- 
bled composition  of  Homer  by  poets  of  different  ages  and 
different  countries.  All  agree  that  Homer's  is  the  greatest 
poem  of  antiquity ;  most  say  that  it  is  the  greatest  of  any  or 
all  ages.  How  was  such  a  rare  union  of  Homer  &  Co. 
brought  about  ?  We  can  find  only  now  and  then  a  solitary 
example  of  poetry  like  his  among  nations,  during  the  whole 
period  of  their  existence ;  a  Virgil  in  Rome,  a  Shakspeare 
and  a  Milton  in  England,  a  Dante  in  Italy.  How  could 
Greece,  in  its  barbarian  ages  between  600  and  1000  B.  C, 
produce  a  whole  host  of  geniuses  like  to  Homer,  and  never 
one  afterwards  ? 

But  I  am  digressing.  The  interest  of  the  subject  has  led 
me  away  from  my  more  direct  purpose.  I  must  simply  state 
the  result ;  which  is,  that  the  use  of  letters  was  known  in 
Greece  some  time  before  the  age  of  Homer  ;  that  it  was  not 
very  common,  however,  until  the  sixth  century  B.  C. ;  that 
the  existence  of  chanters  and  rhapsodists  of  Homer  at  a  pre- 
ceding period,  is  no  proof  at  all  against  the  existence  of  his 
poems  in  a  written  form  during  that  period ;  that  the  unity 


46  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

and  diction  and  dialect  of  his  works  demonstrate  unity  of  au- 
thorship, and  a  good  state  of  preservation  in  respect  to  his 
poems  ;  and  that  the  thing  in  itself  is  all  but  absolutely  in- 
credible, that  poems  of  nearly  30,000  lines  could  have  been 
so  preserved  for  more  than  three  centuries,  without  having 
been  reduced  to  writing. 

Appeal  then  to  the  case  of  the  Greeks,  and  confident  ap- 
peal such  as  has  been  made  in  respect  to  the  works  of  Homer, 
to  prove  the  later  origin  of  letters  among  the  Hebrews,  and 
consequently  the  impossibility  of  Moses'  having  written  the 
Pentateuch,  can  no  longer  be  heard  with  approbation  or  as- 
sent. It  is  too  late  to  bring  forward  such  allegations  among 
us.  In  Germany,  at  the  time  when,  through  the  example  of 
Wolf  and  Heyne,  the  recent  destructive  criticism,  (as  some  of 
our  German  cousins  now  name  it),  was  in  J;he  ascendant,  one  • 
was  famous  '  according  to  the  number  of  axes  and  hammers 
which  he  lifted  up'  against  the  ancient  temple  of  the  Muses, 
whether  sacred  or  profane.  Oommenta  opinionum  delet  dies. 
It  is  too  late  to  palm  upon  the  literary  public  any  longer,  the 
scheme  of  the  Destructives. 

We  return  to  the  Hebrews.  Whether  Greece  possessed 
letters  very  early,  or  did  not,  would  in  reality  affect  but  little 
the  case  before  us.  Moses  and  the  Hebrews  came  out  of 
Egypt,  after  a  long  residence  there.  Moses  was  brought  up 
at  the  Egyptian  court,  and  was  skilled  in  all  the  learning  of 
the  Egyptians  ;  and  Gesenius  has  come,  after  all  his  palaeo- 
graphical  researches,  and  notwithstanding  his  former  opinion 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  composed  near  the  close  of  the  He- 
brew monarchy,  fully  to  the  conclusion,  that  alphabetical  writ- 
ing was  known  in  Egypt  at  least  2000  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  and  among  the  Phenicians  at  a  period  but  little  later. 
Nor  does  he  stand  alone,  even  among  the  Neologists.  Ewald 
and  von  Lengerke,  among  the  most  liberal  of  the  Liberals,  and 
both  now  engaged  in  publishing  a  critico-religious  history  of 
the  Hebrews,  have  avowed  their  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
antiquity  of  writing  among  the  people  of  Western  Asia,  in  a 
manner  not  to  be  misunderstood.  Ewald,  in  his  Geschichte  des 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  4^ 

Volkes  Israel  (Israelitish  History,  1843),  says  (p.  64)  :  "In 
respect  to  the  time  of  Moses,  suggestions  from  the  most  di- 
verse sources,  even  those  of  the  earliest  times,  agree  in  this, 
viz.,  that  writing  was  already  in  use."  Again  (p.  66)  he 
says  :  "  That  writing  was  practised  at  the  time  of  Moses,  the 
two  tables  of  the  Law  prove  beyond  contradiction  ;  and  since 
the  art  of  writing  was  then  actually  in  existence,  the  begin- 
nings of  historical  composition  must  speedily  appear,  for  the 
importance  of  the  Mosaic  period  was  a  sufficient  excitement 
to  engage  in  it."  In  p.  69,  speaking  of  the  nations  of  Wes- 
tern Asia  he  says  :  "  Writing  among  these  nations  always 
appears  to  be  more  ancient  than  any  history  is  able  to  dis- 
close." Again,  on  the  same  page :  "  So  much  is  beyond 
mistake,  viz.  that  it  [the  art  of  writing]  was  a  privilege  en- 
joyed by  the  Shemitish  nations  a  long  time  before  Moses  made 
his  appearance  in  history."  Once  more,  on  p.  71  he  says  : 
"  So  then  the  position  remains  firm,  that,  since  the  time  of 
Moses,  historical  writing  in  Hebrew  might  be  practised,  and 
was  practised."  He  means  to  say,  that  at  least  it  must  have 
begun  as  early  as  the  time  of  Moses. 

Von  Lengerke  in  his  Canaan  or  national  and  religious 
History  of  the  Jews,  after  referring  to  the  ancient  name  of 
Debir,  viz.  Qirjath  Sepher  (i20  Sn^'^p ,  i.  e.  book-town),  says : 
"  At  all  events,  it  seems  historically  to  follow,  from  this 
ancient  name,  that  the  use  of  writing  among  the  inhabitants 
of  the  land  [Palestine]  took  its  rise  in  very  ancient  times, 
before  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt ;"  p.  xxxii. 
Again  (p.  xxxiii.)  he  says  :  "  Among  whatever  original  peo- 
ple of  Shemitish  origin  the  invention  of  writing  is  to  be  sought, 
or  to  whatever  early  period  it  must  be  assigned,  still  the  in- 
vention must  be  supposed  to  precede  Moses  by  a  long  period 
of  time,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  Egyptians."  Again  (p.  xxxv.) 
he  says  :  "  Undoubtedly  at  Moses'  time,  a  commencement  of 
historical  writing  among  the  Hebrews  had  been  made." 

No  one  who  knows  the  sentiments  of  these  two  distinguish- 
ed Hebrew  scholars  and  critics,  will  think  of  accusing  them 
of  any  leaning  towards  orthodoxy.     They  have  been  forced, 


^  §  3.    COIklMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

by  pure  historical  considerations,  upon  the  acknowledgment 
of  these  facts  ;  and  so  must  Mr.  Norton  have  been,  had  he 
paid  but  a  moderate  attention  to  the  critical  history  of  the 
art  of  writing.  Even  De  "Wette,  the  coryphaeus  of  doubters, 
says  :  "  With  Moses  the  author  and  lawgiver  of  the  Hebrew 
State,  the  introduction  of  the  art  of  writing  among  them  may 
well  be  assumed  as  commencing ;"  Einl.  ins.  Alt.  Test.  §  12. 
Our  own  countryman  then,  Mr.  Norton,  who  so  often  speaks 
with  not  a  little  severity  of  the  skepticism  of  the  Germans, 
plainly  outdoes  the  very  leaders  of  dubitation  among  them,  in 
the  case  before  us. 

We  may  then,  in  sketching  the  early  history  of  the  He- 
brew canon,  assume  it  as  a  thing  altogether  probable,  if  not 
quite  certain,  that  in  Moses'  time  the  Pentateuch,  or  at  least 
the  leading  parts  of  it,  were  committed  to  writing.  If  writing 
was  in  use,  the  fundamental  laws  and  regulations,  civil,  social, 
ritual,  or  religious,  must  needs  have  been  recorded.  Such 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the  last  part  of  Exodus,  which 
have  respect  to  the  sketching  of  a  plan  for  the  tabernacle, 
and  the  corresponding  detail  of  the  completion  of  it  in  accord- 
ance with  this  plan,  it  could  never  have  entered  into  the  mind 
of  an  impostor  in  after  ages  to  draw  out  in  writing,  at  least  in 
such  a  way.  That  there  are  a  few  paragraphs  and  some  oc- 
casional glosses  of  an  ancient  word,  added  by  a  later  hand  to 
the  Pentateuch,  one  may  very  readily  concede ;  e.  g.  the  la- 
ter succession  of  the  dukes  of  Edom  in  Gen.  xxxvi. ;  the  ac- 
count of  Moses'  death  and  burial,  Deut.  xxxiv. ;  and  here 
and  there  the  more  recent  names  of  several  towns  appended 
to  the  ancient  appellations.  But  the  very  fact  that  these 
stand  out  so  prominently  from  the  rest  of  the  composition,  is 
a  good  argument  in  favour  of  the  antiquity  and  genuineness 
of  the  book  at  large. 

It  does  not  comport  with  my  design  to  examine,  with  any 
minuteness  and  in  particular,  the  arguments  against  the  early 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  are  alleged  to  be  drawn 
from  the  internal  state  of  its  various  books,  and  especially 
from  those  parts  of  the  several  books  which  wear  the  appear- 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  49 

ance  of  distinct  composition,  if  not  the  marks  of  a  foreign 
hand.  Nor  can  I  here  produce  the  many  arguments  drawn 
from  the  internal  state  and  character  of  the  Pentateuch,  in 
order  to  establish  its  Mosaic  origin.  In  my  own  private 
judgment,  I  must  regard  the  latter  as  far  outweighing  the  for- 
mer. But  all  the  detail  of  these  matters  belongs  only  to  a^ 
critico-exegetical  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  on  an 
extended  plan,  like  that  of  Hengstenberg,  of  Havernick,  and 
others.  Enough  for  my  purpose,  that  the  Pentateuch  is  re- 
cognized as  the  work  of  Moses,  by  all  the  historians  and  pro- 
phets of  the  Old  Testament ;  by  the  Apochryphal  writers,  by 
Philo,  Josephus,  and  all  the  New  Testament  writers,  and  ex- 
pressly and  repeatedly  by  Christ  himself;  as  will  be  seen 
when  we  come  to  produce  the  evidence  collected  from  all  these 
various  sources.  Enough  that  this  matter  rests  on  the  univer^ 
sal  tradition  and  belief  of  the  Jews  in  all  ages  ;  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  authorship  of  the  Iliad,  or  the  Odyssey,  or  of  the 
Eneid,  or  of  the  Commentarii  De  Bello  Gallico,  or  the  work 
de  Bello  Peloponnesiaco,  and  the  like,  rests  on  the  traditiona- 
ry and  universal  belief  of  the  nations  to  whom  these  works 
respectively  belong.  What  is  concerned  with  the  general 
critical  history  of  the  Pentateuch  has  already  been  touched 
upon.  It  is  clear  that  it  might  have  been  written^  (some  small 
portions  of  it  and  some  later  explanations  of  ancient  names 
excepted),  by  the  great  Hebrew  legislator.  If  we  may  put 
any  faith  in  united  and  constant  and  invariable  ancient  tes- 
timony, IT  WAS  WRITTEN  BY  HIM.  At  all  cvcuts,  it  was  in 
the  Jewish  Canon  before  our  Saviour's  time,  and  was  spo- 
ken of  frequently  by  him,  and  by  his  apostles  as  the  work  of 
Moses.  This  is  enough  for  my  main  purpose,  as  I  am  now 
more  concerned  with  its  authority  and  its  right  to  a 'place  in 
the  Canon,  than  I  am  with  the  detail  that  is  connected  with 
a  critical  dissection  of  the  work,  and  a  discussion  of  its  parts 
all  and  singular. 

I  must  not,  however,  dismiss  it  here,  without  adverting  for 
a  few  moments,  to  the  fiery  trials  through  which  this  portion 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  has  had  to  pass. 
5 


50  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

Soon  after  the  era  introduced  by  Semler,  doubts  began  to 
be  raised  concerning  the  earlt/  composition  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Almost  every  marked  period  from  Joshua  down  to  the  return 
from  the  Babylonish  exile,  has  been  fixed  upon  by  different 
writers,  as  a  period  appropriate  to  the  production  of  this  work. 
To  Ezra  some  have  assigned   the  task  of  producing  it ;  in 
which,  if  we  may  hearken  to  them,  he  engaged  in  order  that 
he  might  confirm  and  perpetuate  the  ritual  introduced  by 
him.     To  Hilkiah  the  priest,  with  the  connivance  of  Josiah, 
Mr.  N.  and  others  have  felt  inclined  to  attribute  it,  at  the 
period  when  a  copy  of  the  Law  is  said  to  have  been  discover- 
ed in  the  temple.     Somewhere  near  this  period,  Gesenius  and 
De  Wette  once  placed  it ;  but  both  of  them,  in  later  times, 
have  been  rather  inclined  to  recede  from  this,  and  to  look  to 
an  earlier   period.     The   subject  has  been  through   almost 
boundless  discussion,  and  a  great  variety  of  opinions  have  been 
broached  respecting  the  matter,  until  recently  it  has  taken  a 
turn  somewhat  new.     The  Haut  Ton  of  criticism  in  Germa- 
ny now  compounds  between  the  old  opinions  and  the  new 
theories.     Ewald  and  Lengerke,  in  the  works   cited  above, 
both   admit   a    ground-work  of  the   Pentateuch    (including 
Joshua).     But  as  to  the  extent  of  this  they  differ,  each  one 
deciding  according  to  his  subjective   feehngs.     The  leading 
laws  and  ordinances  of  the  Pentateuch  are  admitted  to  be- 
long to  the  time  of  Moses.     Ewald  supposes  that  they  were 
written  down  at  that  period.     Then  we  have,  secondly,  his- 
torical ^portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  written,  as  Ewald  judges, 
not  by  prophets,  but  before  this  order  of  men  appeared  among 
the  Hebrews — compositions  "  not  earlier  than  the  second  half 
of  the  Judges'  period,  and   certainly  not  later  than  this ;" 
Ewald  Volkes   Geschich.  p.  79.     Then  come  next,  accord- 
ing  to   him,   a  prophetic  order  of  historical  writers,  about 
the  time  of  Solomon,  or  not  long  after  his  reign.     Next  comes 
a  Narrator,  distinguished  for  his  talents  and  his  religious  zeal, 
who  is  to  be  placed  somewhere  near  the  period  of  Elijah  and 
Joel  (about  900  B.  C).      His  compositions  are  of  a  marked 
character  and  style,  and  easily  distinguished  from  the  rest  of 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT  OF   THE  CANON.  51 

the  Pentateuch.  Then  comes  a  fourth  Narrator,  different 
from  all  the  others,  whose  compositions  exhibit  references  to 
events  so  late,  that  we  cannot  place  him  earlier  than  about 
the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B,  C,  not  far  from  the  time 
of  Isaiah  and  Micah.  He  was  followed  by  the  Deuteronomist, 
i.  e.  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy,  who,  as  Evvald  thinks, 
lived  sometime  during  the  latter  half  of  Manasseh's  reign, 
and  in  Egypt  ;  p.  ICO.  Besides  all  these  original  authors, 
and  collectors,  and  redactors,  and  supplementarists,  there  are 
many  pieces  of  composition  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  sev- 
eral in  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  belong  to  wri- 
ters not  specified  in  this  statement,  and  which  were  selected 
from  all  quarters,  domestic  and  foreign.  Thus,  just  before 
the  Babylonish  exile,  the  great  Collectaneum,  or  Corpus  Auc- 
torum  Omniicm,  was  brought  to  a  close. 

Lengerke,  whose  work  is  later  (1844),  admits  a  groufid- 
work ;  but,  with  the  exception  of  some  laws,  etc.,  it  was  not 
composed  until  the  time  of  Solomon  ;  p.  xci.  Next  comes 
a  Supplementarist^  who  must  have  lived  sometime  in  the 
eighth  century  ;  p.  cii.  Then  comes  the  Deuteronomist,  as 
in  Ewald ;  but  he  is  assigned  by  Lengerke  to  the  time  of 
Josiah,  about  624,  B.  C.  The  book  of  Joshua  has  only  a 
ground-work  and  a  Supplementarist. 

Each  of  these  writers  is  so  confident  in  his  critical  power 
of  discrimination,  that  he  proceeds  boldly  to  point  out  all  the 
respective  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  assignable  to  each  au- 
thor or  supplementarist ;  not  doubting  in  the  least,  that  the 
internal  indicia  exhibited  by  the  style  and  matter  are  plain 
and  decisive  in  regard  to  their  respective  theories.  But  here 
arises  a  difficulty.  Let  us  admit  (as  we  must),  that  both  of 
these  critics  are  fine  Hebrew  scholars,  and  very  w^ell  read  in 
all  matters  pertaining  to  the  history  or  philology  of  the  He- 
brews ;  still  the  question  comes  up :  How  can  these  writers, 
each  being  sure  that  he  sees  everything  so  clearly,  differ  so 
widely  from  each  other  ?  P^wald  finds  internal  evidence  of  a 
Ground-work,  four  Narrators,  a  Deuteronomist,  and  of  many 
miscellaneous  compositions  of  others  that  have  been  intro- 


52  §  3.    C03IMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

«luced  by  tliem  into  the  Pentateuch.  Lengerke  supposes  a 
Groundwork,  a  Supplementarist,  and  a  Deuteronomist.  The 
respective  periods  of  each,  (some  laws,  etc.  excepted),  are 
different.  And  yet  each  judges  from  internal  evidence  and 
subjective  feehng.  Each  is  sure  that  he  can  appreciate  all 
the  niceties  and  slight  diversities  of  style  and  diction,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  mistaken.  Each  knows,  (in  his  own 
view  with  certainty),  how  many  authors  of  the  Pentateuch 
there  are ;  while  still  one  reckons  six  and  the  other  three. 
And  all  this — ex  cathedra,  like  a  simple  avzog  tq:r^,  or  dixit 
Mayister. 

I  will  not  ask  now,  '  Who  shall  decide,  when  Doctors  dis- 
agree ? '  But  I  may,  with  all  becoming  deference,  be  per- 
mitted to  say,  that  two  representations  so  widely  different 
cannot  be  both  true.  This  needs  no  proof.  I  do  most  sin- 
cerely believe,  that  neither  of  them  is  true.  In  some  things, 
however,  they  both  agree  ;  e.  g.  that  writing  w^as  known  and 
practised  in  the  time  of  Moses  ;  and  that  some  of  the  laws 
and  the  ground-work  of  the  system  must  have  come  from 
him  ;  (although  these  critics  differ  as  to  the  extent  of  this 
ground-work).  They  also  agree  that  the  Pentateuch  is  made 
up  by  a  nameless  multiplicity  of  compositions  ;  "  here  a  little 
and  there  a  Httle  ;"  "  line  upon  line,"  after  long  intervals  of 
time ;  and  that  it  was  not  completed  until  the  latter  part  of 
the  Jewish  monarchy.  This  Collectaneum,  (I  had  almost 
said  Ollapodrida),  is  everywhere  dismembered,  dissected, 
separated,  and  descriptively  distinguished,  in  a  measure  by 
the  niceties  of  style  and  diction.  But  here  is  another  great 
principle  which  is  summoned  to  the  aid  of  the  critical  ana- 
lyzers, which  is  common  to  both,  and  heartily  sanctioned  by 
both,  viz.,  theii  prophecy  or  prediction,  in  the  strict  sense  of 
these  words,  is  an  impossibility,  and  therefore  is  out  of  the 
question.  All  the  references,  then,  in  the  so-called  prophetic 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  whether  to  nations,  or  events,  or 
characteristics  of  either,  must  have  been  wTitten  post  even- 
turn,  i.  e.  after  the  nations  arose,  and  after  the  events  took 
place,  etc.     This  is  at  least  very  simple  ;  it  is  also  very  effec- 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT  OF   THE    CANON.  53 

tual  for  the  purposes  of  neological  criticism.  It  makes  the 
assignment  of  dates  to  the  ancient  scriptural  writings  com- 
paratively quite  easy  and  obvious. 

It  is  out  of  question  for  me  here  separately  to  canvass 
the  particular  allegations  of  these  critics.  I  can  only  make 
a  few  remarks  of  a  general  nature,  and  must  then  pass  on. 

That  the  five  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were  not  written 
in  one  continuous  succession,  like  an  epic  poem,  or  a  contin- 
uous piece  of  history,  or  an  argumentative  discussion,  is  suf- 
ficiently obvious  to  any  one  who  reads  with  discrimination. 
To  me  the  Pentateuch  from  the  commencement  of  Moses' 
active  public  life  onwards  through  the  whole,  wears  the  air 
of  a  (historic)  journal,  as  well  as  a  record  of  legislation 
which  was  engaged  in  as  often  as  circumstances  called  for  it. 
Everything  is  more  or  less  minutely  recorded,  according  to 
its  relative  importance  at  the  time  when  it  was  written  down. 
It  looks  exactly  like  the  journal  of  a  man,  who  was  often  in- 
terrupted in  writing  by  the  pressure  of  his  other  engage- 
ments. If  Moses  was  actually  the  responsible  leader  of  two 
and  a  half  millions  of  people  for  forty  years,  through  the 
Arabian  desert,  he  most  assuredly  must  have  been  a  very 
busy  man,  and  have  had  but  little  time  for  Avriting.  His 
laws  were  made,  from  time  to  time,  as  circumstances  requi- 
red, and  as  the  people  could  bear  them.  Some  of  them  were 
modified  or  changed  during  the  journey.  All  this  appears  in 
his  journal.  It  bears  the  marks  of  being  a  series  of  brief 
compositions,  written  in  a  manner  independently  of  each 
other ;  for  they  were  doubtless  written  at  very  different 
times,  and  places,  and  some  of  them  quite  remotely  from  each 
other.  Deuteronomy,  which  is  set  so  low  by  some  of  the 
critics,  and  attributed  to  a  foreign  hand  by  most  of  the  Ne- 
ologists,  appears  to  my  mind,  as  it  did  to  that  of  Eichhorn 
and  Herder,  as  the  earnest  outpourings  and  admonitions  of  a 
heart,  which  felt  the  deepest  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  and  which  realized  that  it  must  soon  bid  fare- 
well to  them.  The  repetition  of  laws  is  to  mold  them  more 
into  a  popular  shape,  so  as  to  be  more  easily  comprehended 
5* 


54  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF  THE    CANON. 

and  remembered.  Instead  of  bearing  upon  its  face,  as  is  al- 
leged by  some,  evidences  of  another  authorship  than  that  of 
Moses,  I  must  regard  this  book  as  being  so  deeply  fraught 
with  holy  and  patriotic  feeling,  as  to  convince  any  unpreju- 
diced reader,  who  is  competent  to  judge  of  its  style,  that  it 
cannot,  with  any  tolerable  degree  of  probability,  be  attribu- 
ted to  any  pretender  to  legislation,  or  to  any  mere  imitator  of 
the  great  legislator.  Such  a  glow  as  runs  through  all  this 
book,  it  is  in  vain  to  seek  for  in  any  artificial  or  supposititious 
composition. 

As  to  the  book  of  Genesis,  it  of  course  must  have  been 
matter  of  immediate  revelation  to  Moses,  or  else  of  tradition 
either  oral  or  written.     Now  as  Luke  tells  us,  that  when  he 
was  preparing  to  write  his  Gospel,  he  investigated  all  the 
things  which  it  contains  even  up  to  their  original  sources,  so 
it  may  have  been,  and  probably  was,  with  Moses.     It  was 
for  him  to  judge,  as  the  traditions  were  examined  by  him,  what 
among  them  was  true,  and  what  was  false.     If  we  suppose  him 
to  have  been  under  divine  influence,  (as  I  do  suppose),  then 
the  difficulty  as  to  his  judging  would  surely  not  be  very  great. 
The  accounts  of  former  times,  then,  he  has  brought  together. 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  believing  that  he  has  combined  differ- 
ent ones  ;  and  occasionally,  where  the  subject  was  one  of  deep 
interest,  he  extracted  from  two  or  more  sources  at  the  same 
time  ;    e.  g.   in   his   history  of  the  flood  ;  of  the  creation  of 
man  and   woman ;  and  so  of  other  particulars.     For  nearly 
fifty  years,  all  Germany  has  resounded  with  reports  concern- 
ing this  matter,  which  have  been  greatly  diversified.     The 
most  general  theory  is,  that  two  different  writers  are  the  main 
sources  of  the  book,  viz.,  the  JSlohist,  i.  e.  the  one  who  uses 
JElohim  to  designate  the  Godhead,  in  his  narrations,  and  the 
Jehovist  (proh  pudor !  to  form  such  a  sacrilegious  appellation), 
i.  e.  the   one  who  employs  Jehovah  for  the  same  purpose. 
Germany  is  full  of  books   proclaiming  the  certainty  and  the 
importance  of  this  discovery.     After  all,  metes  and  bounds 
can  be  drawn  with  no  certainty  between   these  two  sources, 
and  evidently  there  are  compositions  in  Genesis  which  be- 
long to  neither,  and  which  are  of  a  mixed  chai*acter.     It 


§3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  55 

matters  not  to  us  who  wrote  these  pieces  or  when  they  were 
written.  They  have  passed,  as  I  believe,  through  Moses' 
hands,  and  are  authenticated  by  him.  Nothing,  moreover, 
can  be  more  natural  than  the  composition  of  such  a  book  as 
Genesis,  in  order  to  constitute  a  kind  of  introduction  to  the 
remaining  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  account  of  the  creation  cannot,  indeed,  be  considered 
in  the  light  of  a  historical  composition  of  the  ordinary  cast ; 
for  no  man  was  a  witness  of  the  events  which  it  records.  It 
must,  therefore,  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  composition 
that  depended  on  divine  teaching  or  illumination  entirely. 
At  least  I  look  on  it  in  that  light.  To  call  it  a  creation-song ^ 
with  recent  critics  ;  or  to  regard  it  as  a  mere  poetic  philoso- 
phem,  or  philosophical  speculation  on  the  origin  of  things 
in  a  poetic  way  ;  I  cannot.  The  sublime  and  awful  matter 
and  manner  of  the  composition  forbid  me  to  attribute  it  to 
mere  fanciful  conceptions  of  the  mind. 

In  some  such  way  would  I  explain  the  various  phenomena 
of  the  compositions,  which  make  up  the  Pentateuch.  That 
a  book  of  such  claims  as  it  puts  forth,  viz.,  as  being  a  work 
of  Moses  the  great  lawgiver,  should  be  composed  at  six  dif- 
ferent periods,  as  Ewald  supposes,  or  at  three  or  four,  as 
Lengerke  maintains,  and  yet  admitted  each  time,  by  the 
whole  Jewish  nation,  by  prophets,  priests,  and  kings,  as  a 
fjenuine  work,  of  Moses,  requires  much  more  credulity  than 
the  commonly  received  scheme  of  belief.  Skepticism  and 
credulity  are,  after  all,  more  nearly  allied  than  most  persons 
are  ready  to  suppose.  That  king  of  Prussia,  who  had  Vol- 
taire at  his  elbow  to  aid  and  abet  him  in  his  attacks  upon 
Christianity,  and  to  foster  his  scorn  of  it,  was  the  victim  of 
superstitious  deliraraents  such  as  are  rarely  found  in  the  in- 
mates of  a  hamlet  or  a  cottasre. 

Still,  the  critics  now  before  us  are  entirely  free,  as  one 
who  reads  them  must  suppose,  from  any  doubts  as  to  their 
power  to  discriminate  between  all  the  various  portions  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  to  separate  them  one  from  another.  Each 
moves   on,   as  though  no   impediment  or  obstacle  could  be 


56  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

thrown  in  his  way.  Lengerke  has  perhaps  even  outstripped 
his  compeer,  in  his  march  through  the  province  of  the  destruc- 
tives. He  tells  us  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  and  Jacob, 
that  kings  should  arise  from  their  posterity,  could  have  been 
written  only  after  kings  arose  in  Israel ;  p.  xci.  Among 
other  things  he  says,  that  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that 
David  composed  one  single  Psalm,  in  the  book  which  bears 
his  name  ;  p.  Ixiv.  And  (which  I  think  to  be  a  rare  discov- 
ery indeed)  he  has  found  out,  that  the  45th  Psalm  is  an  epi- 
ihalamium  on  the  marriage  of  Ahab  and  Jezehel !  p.  Ixvii. 
The  tyrant  and  apostate  son  of  Omri  and  the  Sidonian  idol- 
atrous heathen  devotee,  Jezebel,  hardly  claimed  for  them- 
selves, as  I  wot,  such  an  honor  as  this. 

Each  of  our  critics,  as  I  have  said,  appears  confident  that 
he  is  in  the  right ;  although  one  makes  out  six  redactions  for 
the  Pentateuch,  and  the  other  three.  But  if  we  inquire  of 
some  other  critics,  even  of  the  Liberal  School,  about  the  mat- 
ter of  style  and  tone  in  the  Pentateuch,  on  which  all  the  dis- 
cerptive  process  depends,  they  give  us  a  very  different  ac- 
count of  the  matter.  Eichhorn,  no  mean  judge  by  the  way 
in  matters  of  taste  or  aesthetics,  finds,  as  he  avers  (Einleit.), 
most  palpably  one  and  the  same  tone  and  tenor  of  diction, 
from  the  time  when  Moses  comes  upon  the  stage  until  he  quits 
it.  Deuteronomy  he  regards  as  the  outpourings  of  a  heart 
ready  to  burst  with  interest  and  solicitude  for  the  Hebrew 
nation — such  outpourings  as  could  come  from  none  but 
Moses.  Herder  is  of  the  same  opinion ;  and  his  taste  and 
discrimination  in  oriental  matters  have  not  often  been  sur- 
passed. Rosenmueller  has  avowed  the  same  convictions,  af- 
ter writing  a  commentary  on  the  whole  Pentateuch.  Others 
might  be  named,  to  say  nothing  of  the  English  and  other  Eu- 
ropean critics.  What  are  we  to  say,  then,  to  assumptions 
such  as  those  of  Ewald  and  Lengerke  ?  Are  we,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  to  give  them  our  assent  ?  And  by  what  process 
shall  we  prove  their  judgment  to  be  so  much  superior  to  that 
of  Eichhorn  and  Herder,  in  such  a  matter  ? 

If  it  were  worth  our  while,  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that 


§  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON.  Sf 

men,  even  the  best  scholars,  are  liable  to  mistake  in  judg- 
ments of  this  nature,  which  depend  on  the  style  and  tone  of 
writings.  Two  or  three  notable  instances,  that  are  recent, 
may  serve  to  illustrate  and  to  defend  this  position. 

Of  Sir  Walter  Scott's  talents  and  discrimination  nothing 
needs  to  be  said.  Specially  was  he  au  fait  in  all  matters 
pertaining  to  Scotch  Ballads  and  Border  Stories.  Mr.  J.  H. 
Dixon,  a  literary  antiquarian,  has  recently  published  some 
remains  of  Mr.  R.  Surtees,  a  poet  of  no  mean  rank ;  and 
among  the  rest  a  morsel  of  five  pages,  entitled  the  Raid  of 
Featherstonehaugh,  a  mere^ew  d^ esprit  of  the  poet,  in  which 
he  aimed  to  imitate  the  older  ballad-makers.  Sir  Walter  not 
only  believed  in  the  antiquity  of  the  Raid,  but  quoted  a  whole 
verse  from  it  in  his  Marmion  (Cant.  I.  v.  13  seq.),  and  gave 
the  poem  at  length  in  his  Notes  to  this  work,  with  a  grave 
comment  upon  this  work,  pointing  out  its  distinctive  antiqua- 
rian traits.  Surtees,  of  course,  was  convulsed  with  laughter, 
and  thought  it  good  pay  for  what  Sir  Walter  had  so  often 
done  to  the  public,  by  imposing  on  them  in  the  way  of  pre- 
tending to  quote  old  Ballads,  and  particularly  that  famous 
author  Mr.  Anonymous. 

A  more  recent  arihir  of  a  like  nature  has  just  come  before 
the  public.  Dr.  Reinhold  of  Germany,  being  revolted  by 
such  claims  as  Strauss,  Ewald,  Bauer,  Lengerke,  and  other 
Liberals  make,  to  the  power  of  discrimination  in  all  cases  be- 
tween what  is  ancient  and  modern,  or  earlier  and  later,  in 
writing,  in  order  to  put  these  pretensions  and  boasts  to  the 
test,  composed  and  published  the  story  of  the  Amber  Witch, 
as  a  "  tale  of  olden  time."  It  was  of  course  furnished  with 
the  due  apparatus,  in  the  introduction,  for  carrying  on  the 
hoax  with  success.  No  sooner  had  the  book  been  published, 
than  the  prevailing  opinion  appeared  to  pronounce  it  to  be  a 
genuine  production  of  antiquity,  and  not  a  few  criticised,  and 
explained,  and  praised,  all  in  the  due  and  usual  order.  In 
particular,  the  Tubingen  Reviewers  —  the  compeers  and 
friends  of  Strauss,  pronounced  their  infallible  sentence, 
grounded  on  their  unerring  skill  in  discriminating  the  char- 


58  §  3.    COMMENCEMENT    OF   THE    CANON. 

acter  of  any  composition,  in  favour  of  the  book  as  a  genuine 
ancient  chronicle.  When  the  matter  had  gone  so  far  that  there 
was  no  retreat,  Dr.  Reinhold  comes  out  with  an  avowal,  that 
the  whole  thing  was  a  mere  fiction,  got  up  and  carried  through 
solely  by  himself.  Angry  and  lacerated  critics  pretended  not 
to  believe  him.  The  evidences  of  its  antiquity,  they  averred, 
were  sooner  to  be  believed  than  his  declarations.  Recent 
report  states,  that  Reinhold  has  actually  been  obliged  to  re- 
sort to  the  testimony  of  his  neighbours  and  townsmen,  who 
were  cognizant  of  his  undertaking  in  the  time  of  it,  in  order 
to  confront  the  assurance  of  the  infallible  critics  of  the  New 
School.  So  much  for  this.  What  shall  we  say,  then,  in  re- 
spect to  the  power  of  making  out  all  the  different  authorships 
of  a  book  more  than  3000  years  old,  and  written  in  an  ori- 
ental tongue  ? 

I  have  a  graver  matter  still  to  relate.  About  1824,  2i  fac- 
simile of  an  inscription  on  a  stone  was  sent  from  Malta  to  the 
French  Academy,  with  a  bilingual  writing  purporting  to 
be  Greek  and  Phenician,  accompanied  by  some  emblematic 
pictures  or  outlines  of  them,  at  the  commencement  and  the 
close.  The  learned  Raoul  Rochette  was  then  Keeper  of  the 
Cabinet  of  Antiquities,  and  professor  of  Archaeology  at  Pa- 
ris. He  sent  copies  to  different  Literati  in  Europe,  and  ask- 
ed assistance  to  decipher  the  inscriptions.  These  were  dated 
in  the  85th  Olympiad,  i.  e.  some  436  years  B.  C.  Raoul 
Rochette  believed  in  their  antiquity.  Creutzer  doubted ; 
Boeckh  at  Berlin  also  doubted.  But  Gesenius  of  Halle  and 
Hamaker  of  Leyden,  two  of  the  best  orientalists  and  anti- 
quarians in  all  Europe,  not  only  sided  with  the  French  pro- 
fessor, but  published  comments  on  the  inscriptions,  which  were 
submitted  to  the  European  public.  In  respect  to  the  Greek 
part  of  the  inscription,  it  was  written  ^ovarQoq:rid6v,  in  order 
to  imitate  the  most  ancient  Greek ;  still,  there  was  no  diffi- 
culty for  an  antiquarian  in  reading  it.  But  the  so-called 
Phenician  part,  ^vas  a  matter  of  serious  difficulty.  Each  an- 
tiquarian made  out  his  own  scheme  of  interpretation.  Fi- 
nally, however,  Raoul  Rochette  induced  the  celebrated  Kopp, 


§  3.  commence:ment  of  the  canon.  59 

the  author  of  the  Bilder  und  SchHften  der  Vorzeit,  to  under- 
take the  deciphering  of  these  inscriptions.  This  he  did  with 
the  most  complete  and  triumphant  success,  and  exposed  the 
folly  of  the  claims  made  for  them  to  all  Europe,  even  to  their 
entire  satisfaction.  His  letter  is  in  Vol.  VI.  of  the  Studien 
und  Kritiken  ;  and  it  has  lulled  the  Maltese  inscriptions  of 
the  86th  Olympiad  into  a  sleep,  from  which  they  will  never 
more  wake.  Not  even  the  powerful  voice  of  a  Gesenius  or 
of  a  Hamaker  could  summon  them  back  from  the  regions  of 
Morpheus,  or  (whither  perhaps  they  may  have  emigrated) 
from  the  banks  of  the  Lethe  in  a  darker  domain. 

So  much  for  infallibility  in  these  antique  matters.  How 
can  Ewald  and  Lengerke  expect  from  us  implicit  faith  in 
their  claims,  while  facts  like  these  are  before  us  ? 

To  sum  up  my  critical  creed  respecting  the  Pentateuch  in 
a  few  words ;  I  believe  that  the  last  four  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch contain  a  record  or  journal  kept  by  Moses,  during  the 
period  of  forty  years  spent  in  the  Arabian  waste  ;  that  this 
journal  is  a  mixed  composition  of  laws  and  ordinances  and 
history,  written  at  periods  and  under  circumstances  so  diverse, 
that  parts  of  it  not  unfrequently  wear  the  air  of  a  different 
authorship  ;  and  finally,  that  the  book  of  Genesis  is  composed, 
in  a  good  measure,  of  different  traditions  respecting  preceding 
times,  either  oral  or  written,  all  of  which  passed  under  the 
revising  eye  and  hand  of  Moses.  The  account  of  the  crea- 
tion may  have  been  derived  from  some  of  the  patriarchs,  such 
as  Enoch,  Noah,  or  Abraham,  whose  minds  were  enlightened 
in  regard  to  this  matter ;  or  it  may  have  come  from  Moses 
himself,  enlightened  in  the  same  manner.  Enough  that  all 
is  now  authentic.  Why  should  I  be  called  upon,  then,  to  be- 
lieve in  the  discretive  and  discriminating  powers  of  an  Ewald 
or  a  Lengerke,  when  these  powers  are  exercised,  as  they  have 
plainly  been,  in  separating  what  God  and  Moses  and  the 
Saviour  of  the  world  have  joined  together  ? 

Such  was  the  commencement  of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  The 
foundation  of  the  ancient  Dispensation  was  laid  by  it.  How 
the  Pentateuch  was  diffused  and  preserved  among  the  Jews 


60  §  4    LITERATURE    OP    THE    HEBREWS. 

remains  to  be  shown.  When  and  in  what  manner  the  other 
parts  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  took  their  rise,  still  remains 
for  consideration.  In  order  to  place  this  whole  subject  in  an 
adequate  and  appropriate  light,  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  a 
survey  of  the  state  and  means  of  literature,  and  particularly 
of  religious  writing  and  instruction,  from  the  time  of  Moses 
down  to  the  period  when  the  Canon  was  closed.  When  all 
this  is  before  us,  it  will  be  easy  to  appreciate  what  is  said,  re- 
specting the  composition  and  preservation  of  the  sacred  books  ; 
and  without  some  adequate  and  proper  knowledge  of  these 
matters,  no  just  and  solid  judgment  can  be  formed  in  relation 
to  the  critical  history  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

§   4.  State   of  Literature  and  means  of  Instruction   among 

the  Hebrews. 

In  order  to  present  anything  satisfactory  in  relation  to 
these  topics,  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  a  distinct  view  of 
several  matters,  which  stand  intimately  connected  with  them. 

I.  It  hardly  needs  to  be  said,  that  the  art  of  printing  was 
unknown  at  this  period,  not  only  among  the  Jews,  but  in  all 
hither  Asia  and  Europe.  The  Chinese,  indeed,  boast  of 
knowing  something  of  it  for  a  considerable  period  before  the 
Christian  era.  But  this,  as  well  as  many  other  Chinese 
boasts,  remains  to  be  further  examined. 

The  diifusion  of  books,  even  sacred  ones,  among  any  peo- 
ple who  can  employ  nothing  but  manuscripts  all  written  out 
by  hand,  must  everywhere  and  at  all  limes  be  very  limited. 
The  expense  of  material  on  which  writing  could  be  perform- 
ed, was  somewhat  considerable  ;  yet  this  would  not  compare 
at  all  with  the  expcnci.  of  hiring  a  copyist.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear certain,  what  the  writing-material  was,  in  the  earlier 
times  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth.  The  large  tablet 
(")"r^3>)  on  which  Isaiah  (ch.  viii.)  is  required  to  write,  not 
improbably,  was  a  tablet  of  light  wood  smeared  with  wax. 
But  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  we  find  that  the  roll  on  which 
Baruch  had  written  his  communications,  w^as  cut  in   pieces 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  GI 

with  a  knife,  and  burned  in  the  fire  by  Jehoiakim  ;  Jer.  36: 
23.  Possibly  this  was  a  linen  roll,  or  it  might  more  proba- 
bly be  leather  or  parchment  ?  At  a  very  early  period  the 
Egyptians  began  to  write  on  linen  and  cotton-cloth,  smeared 
ovei'y  after  the  writing,  with  some  diaphanous  substance  so  as 
to  preserve  it.  They  also  wrote  on  what  we  may  name  pam- 
per, i.  e.  stuff  manufactured  from  the  bark  of  the  papyrus. 
The  skins  of  animals,  tanned  and  made  smooth,  and  adapted 
to  the  purpose  of  receiving  impressions  from  ink  of  different 
kinds,  were  early  employed  among  nations  where  writing  was 
practised.  One  cannot  well  suppose  the  Jews  to  be  ignorant 
of  any  of  these  materials,  who  had  lived  so  long- in  Egypt ; 
and  when  once  known,  the  use  of  them  can  hardly  be  sup* 
posed  to  be  discontinued  at  any  subsequent  period.  The 
best  kind  of  parchment  was,  to  be  sure,  only  a  late  invention, 
i.  e.  in  the  time  of  Attains  the  king  of  Pergamus.  But  tol- 
erably good  writing  material  may  be  made  from  prepared 
cloth,  or  soft  and  smooth  skins  of  animals  that  have  a  thin  and 
delicate  cuticle.  The  roll  which  Ezekiel  saw  (3:  9,  10),  and 
the  flying  roll  of  Zechariah,  disclose  to  us  that  either  linen 
cloth  or  skins  prepared,  must  have  constituted  the  then  usual 
material  of  writing.  Psalm  40:  7  speaks  of  a^St)  n|572,  a 
roll  of  the  book,  in  which  something  was  written  that  had  re^ 
spect  to  the  Messiah ;  see  Heb.  10:  5  seq.  The  title  of  this 
Psalm  ascribes  it  to  David.  In  his  time,  then,  books  were 
written  in  such  a  manner,  i.  e.  on  such  material,  that  they 
were  rolled  up.  Cloth  or  prepared  leather  they  must  have 
been,  unless  indeed  the  product  of  the  Egyptian  papyrus 
may  be  supposed  to  have  been  transported  to  Palestine.  To 
make  this  roll  of  a  hook  only  a  decree  in  the  divine  mind, 
because  everything  stands  as  it  were  recorded  in  that  mind, 
(so  Mr.  Norton  has  explained  it),  is  an  application  of  the  by- 
gone doctrine  of  accommodation,  about  as  extravagant  as 
anything  among  the  German  critics  with  whom  he  finds 
fault. 

A  moment's  consideration  of  the  nature  of  the  climate  in 
Palestine,  will  serve  to  show  how  perishable  the  material  of 
6 


62  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

books  must  have  been,  unless  guarded  with  extraordinary 
care.  The  severe  heat  during  one  part  of  the  year,  and  the 
extreme  moisture  during  another  part,  must  have  both  been 
unfavorable  to  the  cloth  and  skin  material  on  which  books 
were  written.  It  is  easy  to  see,  how  the  original  autograph 
copies  would  soon  disappear,  in  such  circumstances,  and  spe- 
cially such  volumes  as  were  exposed  to  constant  use  and  ta 
the  open  atmosphere.  The  original  Pentateuch  might  reach, 
perhaps,  the  time  of  Samuel,  or  of  David  ;  but  we  can  scarce- 
ly suppose  it  to  have  been  extant  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 

II.  We  can  make  no  thorough  comparison  of  the  present 
state  of  the  Christian  world  with  that  of  the  ancient  He- 
brews, in  respect  to  education  and  knowledge,  without  at 
once  perceiving  the  almost  unappreciable  difference  that  ex- 
ists between  them.  Brought  up  as  we  are,  in  a  land  where 
from  our  very  infancy  the  knowledge  of  letters  is  impressed 
upon  us,  and  where  it  is  a  rare  thing  to  find  an  individual 
who  cannot  read  and  write,  and  rare  even  to  find  any  one 
who  is  not  habitually  a  reader  of  some  kind  of  book  or  pe- 
riodical, or  at  least  of  some  weekly  or  daily  journal,  it  is  very 
difficult  for  us  fully  to  realize  the  condition  of  a  people, 
amono-  whom  books  never  circulated,  or  could  circulate,  to 
any  great  extent,  and  of  whom  only  a  few  priests,  and  proph- 
ets, or  some  of  the  noblemen  or  of  the  rich,  could  even  read 
a  book.    Yet  such  was  the  state  of  the  ancient  Hebrews. 

If  there  be  any  one  thing  which  strikes  us  with  astonish- 
ment in  regard  to  the  Mosaic  legislation,  it  is,  that  no  provi- 
sion is  made  by  the  gi-eat  Jewish  law-giver  for  the  thorough 
education  and  enlightening  of  the  Hebrew  nation  at  large. 
When  viewed  in  contrast  with  the  present  legislation  of  most 
Christian  countries  in  respect  to  the  subject  of  educati07i,  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  would  indeed  seem  to  be  one  of  types 
and  shadows,  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  gospel.  It  was 
only  once  in  seven  years,  viz.  when  the  whole  population  of 
the  country  were  required  to  assemble  in  Jerusalem  at  the 
feast  of  tabernacles,  that  the  Law  was  to  bie  read  in  the  hear- 
ing of  them  all;   Deut.  31:  10,  11.      The  usual  period  of 


§  4   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  -63 

this  feast  was  seven  days ;  and  diligent  must  readers  and 
hearers  have  been,  if  all  the  Law  was  read  during  that  pe- 
riod. This  is  all  the  direct  provision  made  by  Moses,  for  the 
instruction  of  the  people.  Three  times  in  a  year,  it  is  true, 
all  the  males  were  to  appear  before  God  in  Jerusalem,  viz. 
at  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  or  the  passover,  at  the  feast 
of  weeks,  and  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles  ;  Deut.  16:  16.  Ex. 
23:  14,  17.  34:  23. i  Doubtless  there  were  some  selections 
from  the  Pentateuch  read  on  these  occasions  ;  but  this  is  not 
expressly  ordered  by  Moses ;  nor  could  the  reading  have 
been  very  extensive,  because  of  other  duties  to  be  performed. 

Besides  these  means  of  instruction,  judges  and  officers  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi,  were  to  be  appointed  in  all  the  Hebrew 
cities ;  whose  business  it  was  to  judge  in  cases  of  dispute  be- 
tween man  and  man,  to  solve  cases  of  conscience,  and  in- 
struct those  who  consulted  them  as  to  the  mode  of  perform- 
ing ritual  and  ceremonial  observances;  Deut.  16:  18,  comp. 
1  Chron.  23:  3,  4.  Of  this  more  will  be  said  in  the  sequel, 
when  we  come  to  inquire  what  part  the  priests  took  in  the  in- 
struction of  the  people. 

The  very  statute  of  Moses,  which  orders  all  the  popula- 
tion of  the  land  to  assemble  once  in  seven  years  in  order  to 
hear  the  Law  read,  does  in  itself  imply,  that  this  v.as  the 
only  means  provided  generally  for  such  a  purpose.  If  each 
family  possessed  a  copy  of  the  Law,  and  could  read   it,  of 

'  I  cannot  i-cfrain  from  noticing  here  an  important  cuxumstance,  ad- 
ded in  the  way  of  encouragement  or  assurance,  in  order  to  show  the  He- 
brcAvs  the  practicability  of  complying  Avith  the  injunction  to  assemble 
thrice  each  year  at  Jerusalem.  What  I  refer  to  follows  immediately  the 
injunction  in  Ex.  3-t:  23,  to  *'  appear  tluice  in  the  year  before  the  Lord," 
and  it  runs  thus  :  "  For  I  will  cast  out  the  nations  before  thee,  and  en- 
large thy  borders,  neither  shall  any  man  desu-e  thy  land,  Avhen  thou  shalt 
go  up  to  appear  before  the  Lord  thrice  in  the  year."  Mr.  Norton  and 
others,  who  speak  with  undissembled  horror  of  the  command  to  extir- 
pate idolatei's  from  the  land  of  Palestine,  probably  may  not  have  turned 
their  thoughts  to  this  necessary  precaution  for  the  safety  of  the  Jewish 
people,  when  celebrating  their  national  feasts  during  so  many  daj's  of 
the  year.  The  withdrawing  of  the  great  mass  of  the  male  population 
from  their  homes,  must  of  course  have  left  the  country  defenceless. 


64  §  4.    LITERATURE    OP   TUE    HEBREWS. 

what  possible  consequence  would  be  all  the  trouble  and  ex- 
pense and  risk  of  assembling  at  Jerusalem  in  order  to  hear 
it  merely  ?  The  defenceless  state  of  the  country,  and  the 
heavy  expenses  of  travelling  with  one's  whole  family  on 
these  occasions,  even  from  the  remotest  borders  of  the  coun- 
try, shows  that  other  more  facile  and  more  economical  means 
of  enhghtening  the  people  and  of  giving  them  full  views  of 
their  religious  and  civil  obligations,  were  no  part  of  the  Mo- 
saic institution.  Had  they  been  employed,  the  general  as- 
sembling of  the  whole  mass,  so  onerous  and  expensive,  must 
have  been  superseded. 

We  know  indeed  that  in  the  times  of  Samuel,  and  of 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  that  there  were  something  like  schools  of 
the  prophets,  in  which  young  men  were  trained  up  for  pro- 
phetic service.  But  the  number  of  them  could  not  have 
been  very  great.  Omitting  these,  we  hear  or  know  nothing 
of  schools  for  the  education  of  the  mass  of  the  people.  They 
seem  never  to  have  existed.  Hence  the  mass  could  neither 
read  nor  write.  Hence  too  the  revolting  fickleness  and  mu- 
tability of  the  Jews,  in  regard  to  the  worship  of  the  true 
God.  A  well  informed  population  must  have  viewed  with 
disgust  the  abominations  of  the  heathen  worship.  But  igno- 
rance is  always  prone  to  superstition,  and  is  ready  to  believe 
anything  and  everything  which  superstition  will  inculcate. 
The  morals  of  the  heathen  were  of  course  low  ;  those  of  the 
Mosaic  system  were  sound  and  stern,  and  as  to  some  features 
perhaps  even  rigid.  Heathen  rites,  we  may  suppose,  were 
naturally  revolting  to  most  Jews,  so  far  as  bloody  human  sac- 
rifices were  demanded.  Yet  even  Moloch  was,  at  times,  wor- 
shipped by  many  of  the  Hebrews  with  zeal.  But  what  attract- 
ed the  ignorant  and  unthinking  was,  the  loose  rein  that  was 
held  over  the  passions.  Impurity  was  even  a  j)art  of  the  heath- 
en religious  rites.  In  the  journey  of  the  Hebrews  toward 
Palestine,  while  under  the  guidance  of  Moses  himself,  the  peo- 
ple joined  themselves  to  Baal-peor,  the  god  of  the  Moabites  ; 
and  all  this,  because  they  were  allured  to  "  commit  whore- 
dom with  the   daughters  of  Moab ;"    Num,  25:  1  seq.     So 


§  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  05 

down  through  the  whole  time  of  the  Judges,  and,  with  few 
exceptions,  down  to  the  Babylonish  exile  itself,  the  Jews 
were  continually  prone  to  turn  aside  from  their  more  rigid 
and  pure  and  elevated  worship,  to  the  rites  and  ordinances 
of  the  heathen.  Nothing  but  the  gross  ignorance  in  which 
they  hved,  can  adequately  account  for  such  a  phenomenon. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  Moses  commands  Jewish  parents  to 
"  teach  his  statutes  diligently  to  their  children,  and  to  talk 
of  them  when  they  sit  in  the  house,  and  when  they  walk  by 
the  way,  and  when  they  lie  down,  and  when  they  rise  up ;" 
Deut.  6:  6,  7.  But  the  instruction  is  all  oral  No  refer- 
ence is  made  to  letters  or  books.  What  the  pai'ents  could 
retain  in  memory  from  hearing  the  Law  read  once  in  seven 
years,  they  were  to  inculcate  upon  their  children.  But  how 
much  the  mass  of  the  people  ignorant  of  letters  would  re- 
tain and  teach,  was  but  too  manifest  in  the  subsequent  igno- 
rance and  proneness  to  idolatry  in  all  ages  of  the  Jewish 
Commonwealth,  down  to  the  time  of  the  return  from  the 
Babylonish  exile. 

Such  is  the  remarkable  difference  between  the  effects  of 
the  Gospel-dispensation,  and  that  of  the  ancient  Law.  The 
votaries  of  Romish  superstition  would  fain  bring  the  mass  of 
Christians  back  to  the  condition  of  the  ancient  Hebrews. 
With  them  it  is  at  least  a  practical  maxim,  that  ignorance  is 
the  mother  of  devotion ;  but  above  all,  that  ignorance  of  the 
Scriptures  is  the  mother  of  devotion.  Hence  the  Bible  it- 
self is  not  to  be  put  into  the  hands  of  the  common  people. 
Religion,  therefore,  with  them  must  practically  mean,  a  rea- 
diness to  submit  to  all  which  the  Pope  and  the  priesthood 
prescribe.  But  here  even  the  times  of  Moses  were  far  in  ad- 
vance. All  the  people  were  required  to  hear  the  lohole  Law 
once  in  seven  years ;  and  parents  were  also  strictly  enjoined 
to  urge  upon  their  children  all  the  precepts  which  they  could 
retain  in  memory.  Moses,  of  course,  did  not  leave  the  whole 
population  to  be  managed  only  by  the  priests. 

I  have  only  to  subjoin  under  this  head,  that  we  must  not 
judge  of  the  policy  or  skill  of  Moses,  in  legislating  for  the 

6* 


66  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

Hebrews,  by  a  comparison  of  the  ancient  Jews  with  our  own 
population  at  the  present  day.  The  Hebrews  as  a  nation 
were  ilhterate  ;  and  they  long  continued  to  be  so.  A  com- 
mand to  set  up  schools  among  them,  in  the  then  state  of 
things,  and  to  furnish  all  their  children  with  books,  would  at 
least  have  been  deemed  by  them  to  be  a  practical  impossibili- 
ty. We,  who  purchase  elementary  books  enough  at  the 
price  of  from  two-pence  up  to  fifty,  can  scarcely  feel  what  a 
burden  the  general  provision  of  books  for  all  the  children, 
and  for  grown-up  readers,  would  have  been  in  the  Mosaic  age. 
It  is  one  of  the  things  that  the  great  legislator  felt  himself 
obliged  to  leave  untouched,  on  account  of  the  circumstances 
of  the  Hebrews,  and  of  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  Book- 
making  or  reading,  and  the  possession  of  books,  could  at 
that  time  belong  only  to  a  few. 

III.  Let  us  now  look  at  this  subject  in  another  point   of 
light.     I  refer  to  the  subject  of  religious  instruction. 

We  who  have  enjoyed  the  privileges  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath and  of  the  sanctuary,  are  but  ill-prepared  for  the  due  es- 
timation of  the  ancient  laws  of  Moses,  in  respect  to  these  mat- 
ters. The  Jewish  people  were  forbidden,  on  the  penalty  of 
excision,  to  kindle  a  fire  in  their  dwellings  on  the  Sabbath  ; 
Ex.  35:  3.  They  were  even  prohibited  from  leaving  their 
habitations  on  that  day  (Ex.  16:  29)  ;  although  the  spirit  of 
this  precept  would  not  seem  to  extend  to  leaving  their  dwell- 
ings for  the  purpose  of  religious  worship.  But  all  idea  of  reli- 
gious social  instruction  on  the  Sabbath  is  entirely  lacking  here, 
and  is  to  be  excluded.  AVe  shall  soon  see  that  there  was  no 
provision  for  social  worship  among  the  Hebrews  on  the  Sab- 
bath, and  no  order  of  men  whose  business  it  was  regularly  to 
superintend  their  habitual  religious  instruction.  Parents  are 
the  only  persons  required  by  Moses  to  perform  this  office  ;  and 
how  well  it  would  be  performed  by  those  who  could  neither 
read  nor  write,  and  had  no  books,  it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive. 
Nothing  is  plainer,  than  that  the  very  arrangement  of  the 
tabernacle,  its  ritual,  its  priesthood,  (and  so  in  respect  to  the 
temple),  presupposes  and  takes  for  granted  that  there  is  only 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  67 

one  lawfully  constituted  place  of  public  ritual  worship.  Three 
times  in  each  year  are  all  the  males  among  the  Hebrews  to 
repair  to  the  tabernacle  or  temple,  and  spend,  on  two  of  these 
occasions,  a  week  each  time  (at  the  Passover  and  also  at  the 
Feast  of  tabernacles),  and  at  least  one  day  as  sacred  time  at 
the  feast  of  weeks  or  Pentecost.  The  reason  why  no  more 
time  was  demanded  on  this  last  occasion,  which  occurred  just 
seven  w^eeks  after  the  feast  of  the  passover,  is  obvious.  It 
was  the  beginning  of  harvest  tinie,  and  the  absence  for  even 
a  few  days  of  the  great  mass  of  the  population  from  'their 
homes,  would  occasion  the  loss  of  their  main  sustenance. 

The  sacrifices  appropriate  to  these  occasions  could  be  offer- 
ed "  only  in  the  place  which  the  Lord  Jehovah  had  chosen." 
Specially  was  this  true  of  the  passover-lamh.  It  must  be 
killed  and  dressed  in  the  outer  court  of  the  tabernacle  or 
temple,  while  its  blood  was  carried  within,  and  sprinkled  up- 
on the  altar.  Of  course  there  could  have  been  no  other  law- 
ful places  of  worship,  i.  e.  of  ritual  worship,  which  would 
have  rivalled  the  tabernacle  or  temple. 

But  still,  may  there  not  have  been  houses  built  in  at  least 
the  larger  towns  for  public,  social,  devotional  worship  ?  May 
not  the  Hebrews  from  Joshua  down  to  the  Babylonish  exile, 
have  had  their  synagogues,  i.  e.  places  of  social  religious  meet- 
ing, in  order  to  read  and  expound  the  Scriptures,  to  sing 
hymns,  to  communicate  instruction,  and  to  give  utterance  to 
exhortations  ?  Nothing  is  easier,  I  answer,  than  for  us, 
brought  up  as  we  have  been,  to  suppose  this.  Indeed  it  is 
even  difficult  for  us  to  suppose  the  contrary. 

We  can  scarcely  credit  it,  that  Moses  should  have  over- 
looked or  failed  to  make  an  arrangement  so  obviously  impor- 
tant and  useful.  But  still,  when  we  make  the  most  strict 
and  thorough  scrutiny  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  both  in  the 
history  which  they  contain  and  in  the  prophecies,  we  cannot 
find  a  trace  of  any  such  thing  as  public  social  worship,  either- 
on  the  Sabbath  or  on  any  other  day  of  the  week,  from  the 
time  of  Moses  down  to  that  of  Ezra.  There  is  not  a  word 
in  all  the  Pentateuch  of  command  to  the  Hebrews  to  keep  the 


68  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

Sabbath,  by  attendance  on  public  ivorship.  There  is  no  inti- 
mation of  even  voluntary  associations  of  individuals  in  any 
part  of  Palestine,  to  hold  any  stated  public  and  social  wor- 
ship, or  to  procure  religious  instruction  for  such  occasions. 

In  the  book  of  Judges,  (the  brief  history  of  a  period  of 
about  300  years),  there  is  little  else  but  a  record  of  Jewish 
propensities  to  idolatry,  and  of  the  chastisement  which  en- 
sued, upon  the  indulgence  of  these  propensities.  There  is, 
however,  one  notable  woman,  Deborah,  who  is  called  a 
prophetess,  whose  history  is  given ;  but  apparently  more  on 
account  of  her  political  than  her  rehgious  achievements; 
Judg.  iv.  seq.  She,  as  it  would  seem,  was  the  civil  head  of 
the  Hebrew  nation,  during  a  period  of  some  length.  Her 
triumphal  song  on  account  of  the  victory  achieved  over  Sis- 
era  and  his  ai-my,  is  on  record,  Judg.  v. ;  but  we  hear  noth- 
ing of  any  religious  instruction  that  she  gave.  After  this 
period,  when  the  Midianites  invaded  Palestine,  overran  it, 
and  greatly  oppressed  the  Hebrews  for  seven  years,  we  are 
told  of  2i  prophet,  whose  name  is  not  given  (Judg.  7:  8 — 10), 
who  was  sent  to  administer  reproof  to  his  countrymen.  This 
is  all  respecting  religious  instruction,  which  the  history  of 
300  years  presents.  Can  we  suppose  synagogues  to  have 
been  extant,  and  regular  worship  to  have  been  carried  on 
during  all  this  time  ?  Nothing  is  more  unlikely,  or  more 
foreign  to  the  demeanor  of  the  Jewish  nation,  at  that  period. 
Scarcely  did  they  rise  up  and  free  themselves  from  one 
neighboring  heathen  nation,  who  had  been  commissioned  to 
chastise  them  for  their  idolatry,  before  they  relapsed  again 
into  the  commission  of  the  same  crime,  and  again  were  oblig- 
ed to  undergo  the  like  punishment.  Nothing  can,  to  all  ap- 
peai'ance,  be  more  true  than  the  last  verse  of  the  book  of 
Judges,  in  reference  to  those  times  :  "  In  those  days  there 
was  no  king  in  Israel ;  every  man  did  that  which  was  right 
in  his  own  eyes." 

This  verse,  moreover,  seems  to  show  that  the  book  of 
Judges  must  itself  have  been  written  after  kings  arose  in  Is- 
rael.    Wliether  as  the  Talmudists  suppose,  it  was  written  by 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  69 

Samuel,  or  whether  more  probably  by  some  other  and  later 
personage,  we  cannot  now  stop  to  inquire.  But  if  the  whole 
book,  as  it  now  is,  was  always  the  same  from  its  origin,  it 
might  seem  to  have  been  written  at  quite  a  late  period  of  the 
Jewish  kings ;  for  chap.  18  :  30  mentions  "  the  captivity  of 
the  land,"  i.  e.  seemingly  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  was  at  the 
commencement  of  Hezekiah's  reign.  But  I  do  not,  with  De 
Wette,  regard  this  as  decisive  of  the  age  of  the  whole  book, 
any  more  than  I  look  upon  the  late  protracted  account  of  the 
dukes  of  Edom  (Gen.  xxxvi),  or  the  account  of  the  death 
of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxiv),  as  decisive  of  the  age  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch in  general.  Some  of  the  documents  (for  several  are 
plainly  combined  in  the  book  of  Judges),  beyond  reasonable 
doubt  are  of  the  more  ancient  stamp,  and  might  have  been 
written  soon  after  the  events  which  they  describe  had  taken 
place. 

In  respect  to  the  book  of  Joshua,  which  also  is  made  up  of 
several  ancient  documents,  this  could  not  well  have  been 
completed  until  the  reign  of  David,  inasmuch  as  we  have  re- 
peated references  to  Jerusalem  in  it  (Josh.  10:  1.  15:  63.  18: 
28),  which  was,  before  the  time  of  David,  called  Jebus 
(Judg.  19:  11),  and  was  subdued  by  David  and  made  his 
capital ;  2  Sam.  5:  1 — 9.  But  the  registers  of  the  division 
of  the  country  among  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  and  some 
other  matters  in  the  book,  it  is  quite  probable  are  of  a  date 
contemporaneous  with  that  of  the  conquest  by  Joshua. 

Thus  it  seems  to  be  plain,  that  for  a  period  of  about  three 
centuries  after  the  death  of  Moses  (B.  C.  1451),  there  could 
have  been  no  other  Scriptures  extant  among  the  Jews,  than 
the  Pentateuch,  probably  some  parts  of  the  book  of  Joshua, 
and  some  portion,  it  may  be,  of  the  book  of  Judges.  These 
Scriptures,  instead  of  being  in  the  hands  of  the  great  mass  of 
the  people,  or  of  being  read  every  Sabbath,  could  have  been 
possessed  by  very  few  even  among  the  priests  and  rulers. 
Indeed  it  is  difficult  to  find  any  recognition  at  all  of  priests, 
during  the  period  covered  by  the  book  of  Judges.  Mention 
is  made,  Judges   20:  28,  of  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar 


70  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

and  grandson  of  Aaron,  at  the  time  when  the  Benjamites 
were  nearly  destroyed  by  the  other  tribes.  But  after  this  we 
hear  no  more  of  priests  or  prophets,  (with  the  exceptions 
above  noted  as  to  the  latter),  until  the  time  of  Eli  and  Sam- 
uel. It  does  not  follow,  indeed,  that  there  were  no  persons 
of  these  respective  orders  among  the  Hebrews.  But  that 
they  performed  no  conspicuous  part,  that  they  were  not  nu- 
merous or  active  enough  to  have  much  influence  on  the  na- 
tion at  large,  seems  to  be  nearly  certain  from  the  manner  and 
tenor  of  the  history  in  the  two  books  before  us. 

In  such  a  state  of  things,  how  was  the  Pentateuch  preser- 
ved ?  By  whom  was  it  watched  over  and  guarded,  and  how 
much  was  it  diffused  among  the  Hebrews  ?  These  questions 
very  naturally  arise  ;  but  we  cannot  stop  to  answer  them  now, 
without  interrupting  the  history  of  religious  instruction  among 
the  Hebrews.  We  shall  revert  to  these  inquiries  as  soon  as 
the  course  of  our  discussion  will  permit. 

Let  us  pursue  the  inquiry  respecting  social  synagogue  wor- 
ship from  the  era  of  Samuel  down  to  the  Babylonish  exile. 

Not  one  word  in  regard  to  this  subject  can  I  find,  in  the 
histories  comprised  in  the  books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chro- 
nicles, or  in  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  or  works  of  the  prophets 
who  lived  during  this  period.  When  Jeremiah  pours  forth 
his  pathetic  Lamentations  over  the  fallen  city  and  country  of 
the  Hebrews,  hie  describes  the  ruins  of  the  temple,  the  metro- 
polis, the  strong  holds,  and  the  villages  ;  he  weeps  over  the 
multitudes  of  the  slain,  the  famishing,  and  the  exiled ;  but 
not  a  word  respecting  the  destruction  of  any  synagogues  of 
the  land,  or  places  of  public  social  worship.  The  commina- 
tions  of  the  prophets  in  regard  to  judgments  about  to  be  in- 
flicted, all  have  respect  to  the  objects  first  mentioned  and  not 
to  synagogues.  It  is  affirmed  of  no  invading  enemy,  whether 
Babylonian  or  other  foe,  that  he  assaulted  or  destroyed  any 
such  buildings  or  places  of  worship. 

The  great  public  fasts,  on  extraordinary  occasions  of  dis- 
tress and  danger,  are  always  proclaimed  and  spoken  of  as  cel- 
ebrated in  Jerusalem,    Thus  Joel,  in  a  time  of  famine  threat- 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  71 

ened  by  the  incursion  of  locusts,  proclaims  a  fast  in  Zion,  and 
the  summoning  of  the  solemn  assembly  there  ;  Joel  2:  15  seq. 
When  several  enemies  had  combined,  and  were  on  their 
march  to  invade  Judea,  the  pious  Jehoshaphat  proclaimed 
and  celebrated  a  fast  of  the  whole  nation  at  t/en^sa/em ;  2 
Chron.  20:  3  seq.  When  Jehoiakim,  stricken  with  terror  at 
the  approach  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  army,  proclaimed  a  fast  to 
all  the  realm,  this  fast  was  to  be  held  at  Jerusalem  ;  Jer.  36: 
9.  Now  as  the  Law  of  Moses  had  made  no  prescriptions  in 
regard  to  any  temple-ritual  for  such  fasts  on  extraordinary 
occasions,  what  necessity  could  there  be  of  assembling  at  Je- 
rusalem for  services  merely  devotional,  in  case  there  were 
synagogues  dispersed  through  all  the  land  ?  The  nature  of 
the  arrangement,  on  the  very  face  of  it,  imports  that  there 
were  no  such  places  of  public  and  social  worship,  where  the 
people  were  accustomed  to  perform  their  devotions.  And 
this  is  plainly  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  when  Jehoshaphat 
sent  princes  and  Levites  through  all  Judea,  in  order  to  give 
the  people  religious  instruction,  they  carried  a  copy  of  the 
Law  with  them,  which  they  obtained  at  Jerusalem,  in  order 
to  aid  and  confirm  their  instructions;  2  Chron.  17:  7  seq. 
This  was  surely  a  needless  precaution  in  case  there  were  syn- 
agogues in  all  parts  of  the  land,  and  of  course  copies  of  the 
Law  in  them. 

I  am  aware  that  it  has  been  alleged  by  some  advocates  of 
the  early  existence  of  synagogues,  that  there  is  a  plain  refer- 
ence to  them  in  Ps.  74:  8,  which  contains  a  lamentation  over 
the  wasting  of  Judea — probably  its  desolation  by  the  Baby- 
lonish army.  Of  the  enemy  the  Psalmist  says  :  "  They  have 
burned  up  all  the  synagogues  of  God  in  the  land."  So  runs 
our  English  version.  The  original  Hebrew  runs  thus : 
V^ixa  ^s^-i'isiin-bs .     The  word  "^^'^'Q ,  here  rendered  tabema- 

I     V  T  T         ••         ••  -:  T  ..  y 

cles,  means,  first  of  all  2b  fixed  appointed  time  or  season  ;  then, 
very  naturally,  the  assembling  or  convention  of  men  at  such 
appointed  seasons ;  then,  thirdly,  (like  our  word  church  which 
means  assembly,  and  then  i\\Q.  place  of  assembling),  it  stands 
for  temple  or  place  of  assembling.     So  Lam.  2:  6,  "  [The 


72  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

Lord]  hath  destroyed  i'l^'a ,  his  temple"  But  in  Ps.  74:  8, 
the  plural  number  of  this  word  is  employed,  b^^-'^'^r'^.la  .  On 
this  account  Gesenius  says,  in  his  lexicon  :  "  It  is  difficult  to 
say  what  this  means ;"  and  on  the  whole  he  thinks  it  may 
refer  to  the  high  places  at  Rama,  Bethel,  Gilgal,  etc.  Rosen- 
mueller  cuts  the  knot,  which  he  cannot  untie.  He  says,  that 
the  Psalm  was  doubtless  composed  in  the  time  of  the  Macca- 
bees, and  refers  to  the  destruction  of  synagogues  by  Antio- 
chus.  More  recent  criticism  seems  to  have  laid  aside  the 
idea  of  Maccabaean  psalms,  and  we  are  thrown  again  upon 
the  difficulty  which  the  case  appears  to  present.  But  it  seems 
to  me  much  less  formidable  than  it  did  to  Yitringa,  or  to  the 
critics  just  named.  Let  us  compare  the  synonymous  word 
ISir'a ,  dwelling  place,  temple,  (synonymous  with  ^"'"a  when 
this  means  temple),  and  see  what  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  is. 
In  Ps.  46:  5.  132:  5,  the  word  (13^'^)  is  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, with  the  sense  of  the  singular ;  in  Ps.  74:  7.  Ex.  25:  9. 
Ezek.  37:  27,  the  same  word  with  the  same  meaning  is  em- 
ployed in  the  singular  number.  "What  difficulty  then  in  in- 
terpreting bx"i'is''i^  after  the  analogy  of  "jSti'^ ,  in  cases  where 
both  words  have  the  same  sense  ?  The  simple  truth  of  the 
matter  seems  to  be,  that  the  use  of  the  singular  or  plural,  as 
to  a  considerable  circle  of  words,  was  a  matter  left  to  the 
choice  of  the  writer.  Thus  he  might  say  bx ,  or  'tvh^_ ,  or 
Q'lnbx ;  "ipy;  or  ^yi^ ;  and  so  in  the  New  Testament  ad^^a- 
tov  and  cd^^ccra,  ovQavog  and  ovquvoI,  dvaroXri  and  dvaro- 
Xai,  and  the  like  in  many  other  cases.  Substantially  there 
is  no  diffi3rence  of  meaning  between  the  singular  and  plural 
forms,  where  such  a  usage  prevails.  The  plural  may  indeed, 
almost  at  any  time,  be  used  instead  of  the  singular,  whenever 
a  writer  conceives  of  an  object  as  composite,  i.  e.  as  consist- 
ing of  various  parts,  and  he  has  reference  to  this  circumstance 
in  the  language  which  he  employs  ;  or,  when  he  means  to  de- 
signate intensity.  When  simple  unity  is  designated,  the  sin- 
gular number  only  is  of  course  employed.  Finally,  inasmuch 
as  the  temple,  with  all  its  courts,  was  a  large  mass  of  build- 
ings, the  plural  of  1^172  might  very  appropriately  be  employ- 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  73 

ed  to  designate  it,  as  thus  conceived  of.  How  mucli  more 
easy  and  simple  this  philological  explanation  is,  than  those  of 
the  critics  just  named,  every  one  may  easily  perceive.  If  it 
be  said  that  bs  stands  in  the  way  of  this  and  requires  the  real 
plural,  my  reply  would  be,  that  the  plural  form  of  the  noun 
may  well  admit  ^3 ,  while  the  sense  of  the  whole  is  not  sub- 
stantially affected  by  it. 

If  there  be  any  passage  besides  this  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  has  even  a  seeming  reference  to  synagogues  properly 
so  called,  it  has  escaped  my  notice.  I  am  aware,  indeed,  that 
some  have  supposed  that  certain  other  passages  might  refer  to 
them  ;  but  the  probability  that  they  do  so  refer,  is  so  small, 
that  I  do  not  deem  it  proper  to  occupy  my  own  or  the  readr 
er's  time  with  the  consideration  of  them. 

In  whatever  way  then  the  Law  of  Moses,  or  any  other 
ancient  books  of  the  Jewish  canon  were  preserved,  before  the 
Babylonish  exile,  it  could  not  have  been  by  the  aid  of  syna- 
gogues. When  these  arose ;  and  what  was  done  in  them 
with  reference  to  the  Jewish  Scriptures ;  are  questions  that 
must  be  touched  upon  in  the  sequel. 

One  other  circumstance  of  a  seemingly  extraordinary  nature 
in  regard  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  deserves  some  special  attention. 
In  the  eighteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Josiah  (about  624  B.  C.) 
the  high  priest  Hilkiah,  on  occasion  of  making  a  thorough 
repair  and  expurgation  of  the  temple,  "  found  the  book  of  the 
Law  of  the  Lord  by  Moses ;"  2  Chron.  34:  14  seq.  2  Kings 
22:  8  seq.  This  he  announced  immediately  to  the  king's 
scribe,  who  took  the  book  and  read  it  before  the  king.  The 
surprise  and  agitation  which  this  occurrence  occasioned  in  all 
quarters,  are  represented  as  being  very  great.  Josiah  imme- 
diately convoked  the  whole  realm,  and  in  person  read  the 
book  of  the  Law  to  them,  and  exacted  from  them  a  promise 
to  obey  it.  What  is  to  be  deduced  from  a  circumstance  so 
peculiar  and  extraordinary  as  this  ? 

We  know  what  Mr.  Norton  has  deduced  from  this  narra- 
tion.    On  p.  87  he  says  :  "■  The  story  of  its  being  acciden- 
tally found  in  the   Temple,  may  be  thought  to  have  been 
7 


74  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

what  was  considered  a  justifiable  artifice,  to  account  for  the 
appeai'ance  of  a  book  hitherto  unknown."  Not  a  few  of  the 
German  critics  have,  in  hke  manner,  traced  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  to  the  transaction  in  question.  If  the  Pentateuch 
was  before  in  existence,  it  was  impossible,  they  allege,  that 
Josiah  and  the  high  priest  Hilkiah  should  have  been  ignorant 
of  it  or  destitute  of  it. 

First  of  all,  then,  as  to  the  prohaUUty  of  such  a  forgery 
on  this  occasion.  What  kind  of  persons  were  concerned  in 
it?  Josiah  was  the  most  pious  king  that  ever  sat  upon  the 
throne  of  Judah,  from  the  time  of  David  down  to  the  captivity. 
He  entered  upon  his  office  at  the  age  of  only  eight  years,  and 
before  he  had  arrived  at  his  eighteenth  year,  he  had  cut  off 
and  destroyed  all  the  idols  of  the  land,  with  their  temples, 
groves  and  monuments  of  every  kind,  and  in  the  way  of  dis- 
grace he  had  burned  the  bones  of  idolatrous  priests  upon  the 
altars  where  they  had  ministered.  Not  only  so  in  Judea,  but 
he  went  beyond  his  own  specific  boundaries,  and  destroyed  all 
the  insignia  of  idolatry  to  be  found  in  the  land  of  Israel ;  2 
Chron.  24:  3 — 7.  Having  accomplished  this  work,  he  im- 
mediately set  about  repairing  the  ruins  of  the  temple,  which 
had  been  occasioned  by  the  fifty-seven  years  of  idolatry  under 
his  predecessors.  Most  zealously  did  he  engage  in  this  work ; 
in  which  he  was  seconded  by  the  pious  and  distinguished 
high  priest  Hilkiah,  who  was  probably  the  father  of  the  pro- 
phet Jeremiah.  In  the  prosecution  of  these  repairs,  the  copy 
of  the  Law  in  question  was  found.  That  there  was  no  con- 
cert between  the  high  priest  and  the  pious  Josiah,  to  introduce 
a  new  system  of  Law  among  the  Jews,  is  quite  clear.  When 
the  scribe  or  secretary  of  state,  Shaphan,  read  the  Law  to  that 
king,  the  latter  rent  his  clothes  in  token  of  grief  and  distress ; 
unquestionably  because  of  the  heavy  denunciations  in  that 
Law  against  idolatry  and  such  sins  as  were  common  among 
his  people.  Immediately  he  sent  to  inquire  of  a  prophetess, 
what  was  to  be  done  to  propitiate  the  anger  of  the  Lord,  which 
had  been  kindled  because  of  the  breaches  of  his  Law  that  had 
so  long  taken  place.     The  answer  returned  was,  that  '  God 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  79 

would  visit  upon  Jerusalem  all  the  evil  that  had  been  done 
there,  but  would  be  propitious  to  him,  on  account  of  his  hu- 
mility and  penitence.'  Immediately  Josiah  assembled  all  Is- 
rael ;  read  to  them  in  person  all  the  words  of  the  Law ;  sol- 
emnly engaged  to  obey  its  precepts  with  all  his  heart ;  and 
obliged  all  the  people  to  enter  into  the  same  covenant ;  2 
Chron.  34:  20 — 32.  He  extended  the  reformation  to  Israel 
also ;  and  all  his  days  he  departed  not  from  following  the 
Lord,  the  God  of  his  fathers  ;  2  Chron.  34:  33.  This  more- 
over was  the  king,  who  renewed  the  passover-rites  which 
had  fallen  into  desuetude,  and  kept  such  a  passover  "  as  had 
not  been  kept  from  the  days  of  Samuel  the  prophet,  nor  by 
any  of  the  kings  of  Israel ;"  2  Chron.  35:  18.  And  as  to 
Hilkiah,  the  record  of  his  life  and  actions  is  brief,  but  full  of 
significance.  To  him  v/as  committed  all  monies  for  repairing 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  even  without  being  required  to  ac- 
count for  them.  The  work  of  repairing  was  carried  on  with 
great  zeal  and  complete  success,  under  the  same  high-priest. 

Were  these  men,  now,  and  others  their  associates  who 
were  evidently  of  the  like  character,  persons  who  would  un- 
dertake to  commit  a  forgery  in  the  name  of  Moses,  and  to 
palm  it  off  as  the  genuine  production  of  that  great  lawgiver 
upon  the  whole  Jewish  people  ?  Then,  moreover,  were  the 
people  so  stupid  and  tame,  as  to  receive  such  a  book  as  com- 
ing from  the  hand  of  Moses,  and  to  swear  fealty  to  all  its  sta- 
tutes and  ordinances  accordingly?  Did  they  not  know 
whether  such  a  book  had  been  received  or  known  by  their  an- 
cestors, not  to  speak  of  themselves  aforetime  ?  In  short, 
whatever  may  be  the  position  in  which  such  a  forgery  may 
be  placed,  or  argued  for,  it  is  a  manifest  and  utter  improba- 
bility. It  scarcely  deserves  a  serious  notice.  Indeed,  such 
a  thing  was  all  but  impossible. 

But  then  all  difficulties  are  not  removed,  by  removing  this 
obstacle  from  our  path.  How  could  the  pious  Josiah,  and 
above  all  the  high  priest  Hilkiah,  have  lived  and  acted  so  long 
(some  eighteen  years),  without  possessing  any  copy  of  the 
Law  of  Moses  ? 


7€  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

That  all  the  ordinary  routine  of  temple-rites  was  well 
known  and  familiar  to  the  priests  who  ministered  at  the 
altar,  must  be  quite  certain.  To  suppose  these  to  have 
been  regularly  performed  by  virtue  of  traditional  knowledge, 
is  doing  no  violence  to  probability.  It  is  only  what  has  hap- 
pened in  all  ages  and  in  many  countries  ;  I  mean  not  the 
performance  of  the  same  identical  rites,  but  of  others  of  the 
like  nature,  as  it  respected  the  religion  of  the  heathen.  It  is 
true,  that  nearly  the  time  of  two  generations  preceding  the 
reign  of  Josiah  had  passed  away,  while  idolatry  in  its  gross- 
est forms  had  pervaded  the  land  under  Manasseh  and  Amon, 
whose  reigns  lasted  fifty-seven  years.  Manasseli  not  only 
"  walked  in  the  ways  of  Ahab,"  but  he  built  altars  and  set  up 
carved  images  for  his  idols  in  the  very  temple  of  the  true 
God ;  he  offered  up  his  own  children  to  Moloch,  and  "  did 
even  more  wickedly  than  the  Amorites  themselves  had  done." 
Besides  this,  "  he  shed  much  innocent  blood  in  Jerusalem  from 
one  end  to  the  other."  To  him,  Jewish  tradition  (with  much 
probability)  attributes  the  massacre  of  Isaiah.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Amon,  who  trode  in  his  steps,  and  withal  was  so 
tyrannical,  that  his  own  courtiers  formed  a  conspiracy  against 
him,  and  put  him  to  death  when  he  had  reigned  only  two 
years. 

In  this  history,  now,  as  it  seems  plain  to  me,  lies  the  so- 
lution of  the  problem,  arising  from  the  fact  that  a  copy  of  the 
LaAv  of  Moses  was  found,  after  so  long  a  time,  by  Hilkiah. 
Nearly  sixty  years  of  undisguised  and  most  thorough-going 
idolatry,  carried  out  even  to  the  most  bitter  and  bloody  per- 
secution of  the  true  worshippers  of  God,  had  obliterated  near- 
ly every  trace  or  monument  of  proper  religious  worship.  The 
number  of  copies  of  the  Pentateuch  had  probably  never  been 
great,  at  any  one  time,  among  the  Hebrews.  Those  more- 
over which  had  been  in  existence,  were  written  upon  perish- 
able materials.  Such  devoted  idolatry  as  that  of  Manasseh, 
it  is  probable,  would  not  permit  any  copy  of  the  Pentateuch 
to  remain  safe,  which  could  be  destroyed.  Antiochus  Epi- 
plianes,  when  he  wished  to  extirpate  the  Jewish  worship  and 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  77 

introduce  the  rites  of  the  heathen  into  Judea,  ordered  all  the 
copies  of  the  Law  to  be  burned.  It  was  an  obvious  measure 
for  Manasseh,  in  order  to  carry  through  his  designs.  The 
story  of  finding  the  copy  of  the  Law  in  the  temple,  which 
created  so  great  a  sensation  in  the  court  and  among  the  peo- 
ple, is  a  good  voucher  for  the  fact,  that  Manasseh  aimed  at 
building  heathenism  upon  the  ruins  of  Mosaism  and  all  its 
monuments,  so  far  as  it  lay  within  his  power.  In  some  se- 
cret recess  of  the  temple,  it  is  altogether  probable,  had  some 
pious  priest  hidden  the  copy  of  the  Law  found  by  Hilkiah, 
in  order  to  prevent  its  destruction  by  Manasseh.  That  priest 
had  probably  died,  or  been  martyred,  during  Manasseh's  im- 
pious reign,  and  the  secret  died  with  him,  as  to  the  place  where 
the  Law  was  deposited.  In  making  extensive  repairs  of  the 
temple,  the  secreted  volume  was  discovered,  to  the  astonish- 
ment and  great  joy  of  the  king,  the  high  priest,  and  the  mass 
of  the  Jewish  people,  who  seem  to  have  been  thoroughly  dis- 
gusted with  the  reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Amon. 

If  any  one  should  regard  it  as  quite  improbable,  that  the 
copies  of  the  Law  could  be  reduced  to  a  single  one  at  this 
period,  let  him  read  the  religious  history  of  France  during  the 
reign  of  terror  and  of  atheism.  In  less  than  an  eighth  part 
of  the  time  in  which  idolatry  prevailed  under  Manasseh  and 
Amon,  France  had  succeeded  so  entirely  in  obliterating  all 
traces  of  the  Scriptures,  in  and  about  Paris,  numerous  as 
Bibles  were  in  that  city  at  a  period  preceding  the  reign  of 
terror,  that  for  many  weeks  the  Committee  of  the  Bible 
Society  could  not  find  a  single  copy  from  which  they  might 
print  a  new  edition.  How  much  easier  to  produce  a  like 
effect  in  the  time  of  Manasseh,  when  the  copies  of  the  Scrip- 
tures were  so  very  few,  and  when  almost  every  individual 
who  possessed  them,  must  be   publicly  known  as  the  pos- 


sessor 


It  is  true,  indeed,  that,  according  to  the  book  of  Chroni- 
cles (chap,  xxxiii.),  Manasseh  was  taken  captive  and  car- 
ried to  Babylon  in  chains,  and  after  a  while,  being  released, 
he  returned  to  his  kingdom  penitent  and  humbled,  and  en- 

7* 


78  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

deavoured  to  repair  the  mischief  he  had  done  to  the  true  re- 
ligion, by  building  up  the  aUars  of  the  Lord,  and  removing 
and  destroying  the  images  of  false  gods.    Of  all  this,  it  is  true, 
the  book  of  Kings  says  nothing ;  but  still,  the  history  is  not 
the  less  credible  on  this  account.     Even  the  book  of  Chron- 
icles, however,  does  not  give  us  any  data  by  which  we  can 
estimate  with  certainty  at  what  time  in  the  reign  of  Manas- 
seh  his  exile  took  place.     But  the  probability  seems  to  be, 
that  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  his  very  long  reign  {bb  years), 
and  that  he  had  not  then  either  the  time  or  the  means  neces- 
sary to  repair  the  mischief  he  had  done.     He  could  not  re- 
store the  copies  of  the  Law  which  had  been  destroyed,  if  it 
was  a  matter  of  fact  that  he  had  destroyed  them ;  and  it  is 
altogether  probable  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  fact  or  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  Pentateuch  roll  had  been  secreted  in  some 
part  of  the  temple.      Then  his  son,  Amon,  walked  in  the 
wandering  steps  of  his  father,  and  matters  remained  as  they 
were  until  Josiah  came  to  occupy  the  throne.     Mere  child  as 
the  latter  was,  he  appears  to  have  been  deeply  imbued  with 
the  spirit  of  piety,  and  to  have  commenced  the   work  of  re- 
formation iis  soon  as  his  government  was  fairly  established. 
The  sequel  of  his  history  has  already  been  presented  to  view. 
On  the  whole,  strange  as  the  finding  of  a  copy  of  the  Law 
of  Moses  after  an  eighteen  years'  reign  of  Josiah  appears  at 
first  view  to  be,  and  much  as  has  been  made  of  it  by  interested 
critics  against  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  turns  out, 
upon  more  careful  examination,  to  be  nothing  incredible,  nor 
even  very  strange.     But  thus  much  at  least  maybe  gathered 
from  it  which  is  appropriate  to  our  present  purpose,  viz.,  that 
there  were   at  that  time  no  synagogues  in  the  land  which 
were  depositaries  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  that  few  per- 
sons indeed,  in  a  time  of  general  idolatry  and   heathenism, 
possessed  copies  of  the  Pentateuch.      We  cannot  conclude, 
for  certainty,  that  no  copy  was  extant  in  Judea  at  that  time, 
except  the  hidden  one  in  the  temple.     There  were  pious  men, 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  among  the  idolatrous  mass  of 
the  people ;  and  some  of  these  might  have  a  copy  of  the 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OP  THE  HEBREWS.  79 

Law.  When  Elijah,  in  the  time  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  com- 
plained to  God,  that  he  alone  of  all  his  true  worshippers  was 
left  in  the  land  of  Israel,  he  was  told  by  him  who  is  the 
searcher  of  hearts,  that  7000  were  yet  left,  who  had  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  Baal.  And  so  it  might  be,  at  least  in 
some  measure,  under  the  reign  of  Manasseh  and  Amon. 
But  still,  the  fact  that  Josiah  reigned  eighteen  years  before  the 
book  of  the  Law  was  found,  seems  to  import,  that  no  other 
copy  of  this  book  was  then  procurable  in  his  dominions. 

The  fact  then,  that  before  the  Babylonish  exile  there  were 
no  synagogues,  and  no  public,  social,  devotional  worship,  lies 
upon  the  very  face  of  the  whole  Jewish  history.  An  ex- 
traordinary fact,  I  am  ready  to  confess,  it  seems  to  us  to  be, 
so  different  is  it  from  a  state  in  which  a  Christian  education 
and  weekly  devotional  worship  are  general,  and  are  regarded 
as  indispensable.  On  what  ground  the  great  Jewish  legisla- 
tor omitted  to  make  provision  for  the  general  education  of  the 
Jewisli  people,  and  above  all  for  their  religious  education  and 
for  their  social  devotional  worship,  we  do  not  know.  But  at 
all  events,  such  a  matter  goes  fully  to  illustrate  the  truth  of 
what  the  apostle  says,  when  he  declares  that  "  the  Law  was 
the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image 
of  those  things  ;"  Heb.  10:  1.  It  seems  also  to  illustrate  the 
declarations,  that  "  the  Law  made  nothing  perfect,"  (Heb.  7: 
19),  and  that  "  the  first  covenant  was  not  faultless"  (Heb.  8: 
7,  8) ;  yea,  in  view  of  these  matters,  one  may  even  venture 
to  say,  with  Paul,  that  the  Jews,  who  had  only  a  public  ritual 
with  all  its  external  pomp  and  show  instead  of  a  religious 
education  and  stated,  social,  devotional  worship  and  instruc- 
tion, "  were  under  bondage  to  the  elements  of  the  world ;" 
Gal.  4:  3.  Or  one  may  express  the  feelings  which  sponta- 
neously arise  in  his  bosom,  after  such  a  survey  of  the  reli- 
gious state  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  by  saying  with  Paul : 
"  Even  that  which  was  made  glorious,  had  no  glory  in  this 
respect,  by  reason  of  the  glory  [of  the  gospel]  which  excel- 
leth  ;"  2  Cor.  3: 10. 

That  the  Jews  had  no  regular  places  of  public  and  social  wor- 


80  §  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

ship,  and  no  religious  services  appropriate  to  these,  while  in 
a  state  of  exile  and  servitude  in  Babylonia,  need  not  be  shown. 
"  How  could  they  sing  the  Lord's  song  in  a  foreign  land?" 
No ;  "  by  the  rivers  of  Babylon  they  sat  down  and  wept ; 
they  hanged  their  harps  upon  the  willows ;"  Ps.  cxxxvii. 

One  might  naturally  expect  an  altered  state  of  things, 
after  the  Hebrews  had  returned  from  a  seventy  years'  exile. 
The  better  portion  of  the  people  would  naturally  be  the  por- 
tion who  went  back  to  their  native  land.  Some  time  (about 
seventy  years)  after  permission  to  return  and  rebuild  the 
temple,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  appeared  as  reUgious  and  polit- 
ical reformers  among  the  Jews  living  in  and  around  their 
metropolis.  The  services  of  these  distinguished  men  were 
great  and  important.  Indeed,  I  think  we  can  hardly  look 
upon  Ezra  in  any  other  light,  than  as  a  kind  of  second  Moses 
among  his  countrymen. 

Yet  in  all  the  accounts  of  what  these  two  reformers  did, 
there  is  nothing  which  expressly  recognizes  the  institution  of 
synagogues.  Still,  the  public  reading  and  exposition  of  the 
Law,  so  circumstantially  related  in  Neh.  8:  1  seq.,  might 
very  naturally  lead  the  people  and  their  governors  to  see  and 
feel  the  importance  of  providing  the  means  for  employing  the 
like  method  of  instruction — ^means  that  would  ensure  its  being 
often  and  statedly  given.  But  of  this,  express  mention  is 
not  made  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  and  after 
these,  we  have  no  Jewish  historical  writings  on  which  we 
can  rely,  until  near  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  about  170 — 
160  B.  C.  Nor  does  even  the  first  book  of  the  Maccabees, 
(one  of  the  oldest  and  most  credible  of  all  the  apocryphal 
books),  say  a  word  of  synagogues.  But  it  says  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  that  he  burned  up  ta  ^i§Xia  zov  voiiov,  and  also 
intimates  that  copies  of  the  Law,  in  the  hands  of  individuals, 
were  not  unfrequent ;  1  Maccabees  1:  56,  57.  This  imports 
a  very  different  state  of  things  from  that  which  existed,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  the  time  of  Josiah. 

The  Jews  themselves  have  nothing  more  than  mere  floating 
traditions,  about  the  origin  and   introduction  of  synagogues. 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  Sf- 

In  1  Mace.  3:  45,  46,  mention  is  made  of  the  Jews,  after  the 
sanctuary  was  laid  waste,  as  assembUng  for  prayer  at  Masse- 
pha  (JVIizpeh),  because  it  was  formerly  a  tonoq  TZQoaevxTJy'j 
i.  e.  a  place  for  prayer.  But  this  merely  refers  to  the  occa- 
sional worship  at  Mizpeh,  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  and  after- 
wards ;  1  Sam.  7:  5  seq.  In  the  eighth  chapter  of  Nehe- 
miah  we  have  a  history  of  the  reading  and  explanation  of  the 
Law,  which  might  well  serve  as  a  model  for  synagogue  wor- 
ship ;  but  still  nothing  is  said  of  the  institution  of  synagogues. 
It  is  only  the  Jews  of  a  late  period,  who  refer  to  Ezra  the  in- 
stitution and  modelling  of  synagogue  worship.  So  does  IVIai- 
monides  fully  and  without  scruple  ;  but  yet  he  supports  him- 
self merely  by  appealing  to  tradition ;  see  in  Vitr.  De  Vet. 
Synag.  p.  414  seq.  Josephus  speaks  repeatedly  of  syna- 
gogues, in  the  time  of  Claudius ;  e.  g.  in  Antiq.  Jud.  XIX.  c. 
5.  c.  6.  Bell.  Jud.  VIL  c.  21,  edit.  Colon.  Philo  speaks  of 
synagogues  beyond  the  Tiber,  at  Alexandria,  and  in  other 
large  cities ;  De  Legat.  ad  Caium.  Of  the  fact  that  these 
were  common  and  numerous,  there  is  no  doubt ;  for  the  New 
Testament  is  full  of  references  to  synagogues,  both  in  and 
out  of  Palestine.  But  all  this  does  not  give  us  anything  to 
depend  on,  as  to  the  Jirst  origin  of  synagogues.  This  is  lost 
in  antiquity.  No  Jewish  author  has  given  us  any  express 
and  credible  history  respecting  this  point. 

The  Rabbinic  tradition  about  the  Parashoth,  or  sabbatical 
lections  of  the^  Law,  viz.  about  ceasing  to  read  these  in  the 
time  of  persecution  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  putting  the 
Haphtaroth  or  prophetical  lections  in  their  stead,  seems  not 
improbable,  at  first  view  ;  and  if  this  was  matter  of  fact,  then 
synagogues  would  seem  to  have  been  in  existence  in  the  time 
of  Antiochus ;  for  the  Parashoth  and  Haphtaroth  are  adapted 
to  synagogue-worship,  and  not  to  the  ritual  of  the  temple. 

We  are  left  then  to  conjecture  as  to  what  time  after  the 
return  from  the  Babylonish  exile,  the  public  and  social  wor- 
ship of  the  synagogues  commenced.  That  it  began  soon  af- 
ter the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  if  not  in  their  day,  would 
Bcem  to  be  indicated  by  the  declaration  of  the  apostle  James 


82  §  4,   LITERATURE    OF   THE   HEBREWS. 

(Acts  15:  21),  that  "  Moses  of  old  time  (ix  yeveav  aQXccfoov) 
hath  in  every  city  (xazu  nohv)  them  that  preach  him,  being 
read  in  the  synagogues  every  sabbath  day ;"  comp.  Acts  13: 
15,  27.  I  will  not  say  that  such  a  phrase  as  «x  yEveoSv  aoicdav 
might  not  be  employed  in  reference  to  a  custom  which  origi- 
nated even  after  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  i.  e.  B.  C. 
170.  But  such  is  not  the  natural  import  of  the  phrase  in 
question,  in  the  mouth  of  a  Jew.  One  can  hardly  satisfy  him- 
self with  a  period  much  short,  to  say  the  least,  of  that  in 
which  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  or  Malachi  lived.  The  nature  of 
the  case  appears  very  much  to  favor  this  more  extended  lati- 
tude of  meaning.  From  the  time  of  Joshua  down  to  that  of 
the  Babylonish  exile,  the  Jews  had  been  ever  prone  to  fall 
into  idolatry,  and  to  practise  all  the  rites  of  the  neighboring 
nations.  What  could  be  plainer,  than  that  the  want  of  an 
adequate  rehgious  education  was  one  of  the  principal  causes 
of  their  defections  ?  Men  of  such  learning  and  skill  as  Ezra, 
could  not  help  discerning  this.  What  more  rational  and  pro- 
bable, than  to  suppose  that  he  and  Nehemiah  concerted  and 
carried  into  execution  some  plan  for  the  general  instruction 
of  the  Jewish  people,  specially  as  to  the  nature  of  their  reli- 
gious duties  ? 

I  am  aware  that  we  should  examine  with  caution  the  Rab- 
binic stories  respecting  Ezra  and  his  colleagues,  who  are  said 
to  be  the  members  of  what  is  called  the  Great  Synagogue, 
But  while  I  would  lend  no  willing  ear  to  the  ni'iafn  or  roman- 
tic conceits  of  the  Jewish  doctors,  I  cannot  persuade  myself, 
as  many  of  the  recent  Liberalists  in  criticism  have  done, 
that  there  is  no  proper  historical  basis  on  which  we  may  re- 
pose confidence,  in  respect  to  the  existence  or  achievements 
of  the  Great  Synagogue.  All  Rabbinic  antiquity  takes  for 
granted,  that  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  there  was  a 
select  body  of  men  in  Judea,  who  were  named  the  Great 
Synagogue,  and  who  had  much  to  do  with  arranging  the  Jew- 
ish Scriptures,  making  provision  for  their  circulation,  furnish- 
ing the  best  text  to  be  had,  and  in  a  word,  performing  the 
part  which  was  afterwards  performed  by  the  well-known  Jew- 


§  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  83 

ish  Sanhedrim.  Eau  (De  Synagoga  Magna),  and  Aurivil- 
lius  of  Upsala  (Diss.  Sac,  edit.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  p.  139  seq.), 
have  endeavoured  to  undermine  the  whole  of  this  tradition, 
and  to  show  that  it  is  unworthy  of  credit.  But  after  all,  noth- 
ing but  the  conceits  which  the  Rabbins  have  connected  with 
the  tradition,  seem  to  demand  rejection.  If  these  were  a  good 
reason  for  rejecting  the  tradition  itself,  then  many,  or  rather 
most  of  the  narrations  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  must 
be  rejected  in  the  like  manner ;  for  what  is  there  to  which 
the  Rabbins  have  not  attached  some  fantasies  not  unfrequent- 
ly  bordering  upon  the  ridiculous  ? 

On  the  other  hand ;  nothing  can  be  more  probable,  than 
that  two  such  patriots  and  men  of  ardent  piety  and  sound  un- 
derstanding and  great  zeal,  as  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  would  call 
into  council  and  active  cooperation  some  of  the  wisest  and  best 
and  most  influential  men  among  their  Hebrew  contempora- 
ries and  countrymen  ?  The  Jews  have  ever  and  always  be- 
lieved this,  so  far  as  we  know.  I  do  not  aver,  that  Josephus 
has  expressly  said  anything  of  the  Great  Synagogue ;  and 
the  plain  reason  seems  to  be,  that  he  has  merely  followed  the 
sacred  records  in  his  account  of  those  times.  Philo  had  no 
occasion  to  speak  of  the  formation  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  in 
those  of  his  writings  now  extant ;  and  the  Son  of  Sirach,  in 
his  catalogue  of  Jewish  worthies  (Sir.  xlv — xlix),  has  even 
omitted  Ezra  himself,  probably  because  of  his  lack  of  politi- 
cal eminence.  No  certain  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  such 
omission  on  the  part  of  these  writers,  against  the  fact  that 
there  was  a  Great  Synagogue.  The  Mishna  (Pirqe  Aboth, 
c.  1)  expressly  appeals  to  it ;  and  so  do  the  train  of  Rabbini- 
cal writings  in  after  times. 

One  striking  fact,  of  a  historical  nature,  will  serve  to  ren- 
der probable  the  supposition,  that  synagogue  instruction  and 
worship  must  have  been  somewhat  early  instituted  after  the 
return  of  the  Jews  from  their  long  exile.  We  have  no 
knowledge,  that  the  mass  of  that  nation  have,  at  any  period 
since  that,  become  the  devotees  of  heathen  and  idol-worship. 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  did  his  best  to  corrupt  them,  both  by 


84  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

persuasion  and  force.  He  even  bestowed  the  office  of  high 
priest  on  such  persons  as  seconded  his  views.  But  all  in 
vain,  as  to  the  mass  of  the  people.  Only  the  refuse  of  the 
Jewish  community  hearkened  to  him.  Judas  Maccabaeus 
and  his  companions  made  opposition,  roused  the  Hebrew  na- 
tion, and  finally  expelled  all  traces  of  heathen  worship  from 
their  borders. 

What  now  was  it  which  kept  the  Jews,  for  more  than  five 
centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  from  becoming  idolaters, 
as  they  had  so  constantly  been  (short  intervals  excepted)  du- 
ring almost  a  thousand  years  before  the  Babylonish  exile  ? 
Something  must  not  only  have  operated,  but  operated  power- 
fully. Their  temptations  to  embrace  idol-worship  were  not 
stronger  or  more  frequent  before  this  exile,  than  after  it ; 
specially  under  the  Syrian  kings,  the  Seleucidae.  Yet  they 
remained  firm  and  unwavering,  with  the  small  exception 
mentioned  that  took  place  during  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes.  I  cannot  imagine  any  cause  adequate  to  produce  such 
an  effect,  excepting  that  of  religious  instruction.  Nor  can 
I  see  any  way  in  which  this  could  be  accomplished,  except- 
ing in  that  of  reading  and  preaching  in  synagogues.  The 
Mosaic  institute,  that  the  Law  should  be  read  once  in  seven 
years  to  the  assembled  mass  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  had  been 
tried  for  almost  a  thousand  years,  and  had  been  found  quite 
inefficacious,  particularly  as  this  reading  was  often  neglected. 
What  more  probable,  than  that  the  enlightened  and  patriotic 
and  pious  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  devised  and  estabhshed  the 
social  worship  of  the  synagogues,  as  a  preservative  from  all 
inclination  to  future  apostasy  and  idolatry  ? 

Since  we  have  no  express  and  certain  history  in  regard  to 
this  point ;  since  moreover  we  know  that  Synagogues  were  in 
being  a  long  time  {an  uQ'j^tacov  yevacjv)  before  the  Christian 
era ;  since  the  Jews  were  actually  preserved  from  idolatry 
and  heathen  rites,  and  no  means  but  efficient  religious  in- 
struction which  is  general  are  adequate  to  produce  such  an  ef- 
fect ;  I  see  no  good  reason  why  we  may  not  regard  it  as  al- 
together probable,  that  synagogue-worship  was  devised  and 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  TiHE  HEBREWS.  85 

commenced  under  the  superintendence  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
and  the  men  of  the  'nhh'^'}  t  rC523  or  Great  Synagogue. 

But  there  is  another  branch  of  this  topic  respecting  reli- 
gious instruction,  to  which  I  have  hitherto  but  merely  advert- 
ed, but  which,  standing  intimately  connected  as  it  does  with, 
the  topic  just  discussed,  should  here  be  brought  more  distinct- 
ly into  view.  I  refer  to  the  priests  and  Levites  of  the  Mosa*- 
ic  dispensation. 

Whoever  borrows  his  views  of  the  offices  of  these  from  the 
functions  of  a  Christian  pastor,  and  regards  them-  as  having  a 
similar  employment  among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  will  find,  on 
examination,  that  he  is  radically  mistalvcn.  The  fact  that 
there  were  no  synagogues  before  the  Babylonish  exile,  i».  e;  no 
places  for  public  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and  for  preaching, 
of  itself  shows,  that  there  could  have  been  no  regular  order 
of  men  among  the  Jews,  who  performed  a  public  part  in  social 
and  devotional  worship.  Had  Moses  made  provision  for 
such  an  order  of  men,  he  would  have  made  provision  for  the 
means  of  performing  their  proper  duties. 

A  glance  at  the  Mosaic  institutes  serves  to  show  at  once, 
that  the  sum  of  duties-  attached  to  the  priestly  office,  was  the 
performance  of  those  services  which-  were  appropriate  to  the 
ritual  worship  of  the  tabernacle  and  temple.  These  duties 
required  so  much  bodily  vigour  and  activity,  that  they  were 
limited  to  those  who  were  between  the  age  of  thirty  and  fifty, 
Num.  4:  3,  23,  30,  35,  39,  43,  47.  To  the  office  of  priest, 
only  Aaron  and  his  posterity  loere  consecrated  ;  Ex.  28:  1.  30: 
30.  29:  5  seq.  All  the  rest  of  the  Levites  were  given  to  Aaron 
and  his  sons,  as  mere  subsidiaries  in  the  performance  of  their 
duties ;  Num.  3:  9.  8:  19,  comp.  Num.  iv.  viii.  throughout. 
In  the  time  of  David,  the  priests  had  become  so  numerous, 
that  they  were  divided  by  him  into  twenty-four  courses  or  di- 
visions, each  of  which  in  turn  served  a  definite  period  of  time 
in  the  temple ;  1  Chron.  23:  3,  6»  24:  3  seq.  comp.  Luke  1:  5. 
As  to  the  Levites,  it  appears  that  tliere  were,  at  one-  and  the 
same  time,  38,000  males,  who  were  of  the  age  of  thirty  and 
upwai'ds.  To  these  were  assigned  by  that  pious  king,  duties 
8 


86  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

appropriate  to  their  condition  in  accordance  with  the  institu- 
tions of  Moses  ;  1  Chron.  23:  3,  4,  comp.  26:  29.  The  great- 
er part,  at  that  time,  were  employed  in  aiding  to  build  the 
temple  to  be  erected  by  Solomon.  But  still,  6,000  were  ap- 
pointed to  be  Diu3Si'i:;i  di'i::^ ,  magistrates  and  judges.  Inas- 
much as  the  verb  "i::'iJ  signifies  to  write  or  inscribe,  it  would 
seem  quite  probable  that  the  Shoterirn  were  magistrates  who 
kept  records  for  their  own  use  and  for  the  public  weal.  In  a 
literal  sense,  I'JW  would  seem  to  be  equivalent  to  yga^^iaTevg ; 
but  it  is  evidently  of  wider  usage  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
and  designates  magistrates,  probably  those  whose  business 
was  connected  with  records.  In  Deut.  16:  18,  the  very  same 
officers  are  named,  and  Moses  gives  commandment  that  they 
shall  be  appointed  in  all  the  gates  of  the  Hebrews.  Moses 
does  not  say  that  these  respective  offices  shall  be  limited  to 
the  Levites  only  ;  but  it  is  quite  evident,  that  since  they  were 
the  most  enlightened  part  of  the  Jewish  community,  on  this 
account  they  would  most  naturally  receive  such  appoint- 
ments o 

The  manner  in  which  the  Levites  were  disposed  of  by 
Moses  and  Joshua,  shows  that  they  were  not,  and  were  not 
designed  to  be,  teachers  among  the  people  in  the  capacity  of 
school-masters.     God  gave  commandment  to  Aaron,  that  nei- 
ther he  nor  his  posterity,  the  priests,  should  have  any  inheri- 
tance in  the  land  of  Palestine  or  any  part  among  their  breth- 
ren ;  Num.  18:  20.     At  the  same  time,  provision  was  made 
for  the  maintenance  and  accommodation  of  priests  and  Levites. 
Unto  Moses  it  was  said,  that  he  should  command  the  children 
of  Israel  to  assign  unto  the  Levites  cities  to  dwell  in,  and  the 
suburbs  around  them  ;  Num.  35:  2.     Accordingly,  after  the 
conquest  of  Canaan  we  find  Joshua  assigning  to  them  forty- 
eight  cities  with  their  suburbs,  scattered  over  all  the  country. 
As  they  were  restrained  from  the  ownership  and  cultivation 
of  lands  for  agriculture,  (the  suburbs  of  their  cities  being  as- 
signed to  them  merely  for  gardens),  their  fellow  citizens  were 
bound  to  provide  for  them  by  tithes,  first-fruit  offerings,  and 
parts  of  beasts  sacrificed;  Deut.   18:  3 — 5,  comp.  26:  12. 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OP  THE  HEBREWS.  &f 

Special  liberality  and  charity  to  the  Levites  are  strongly  en- 
joined by  Moses;  Deut.  12:  19.  14:  27 — 29.     In  return  for 
all  these  contributions,  the  Levites  were  to  be  the  judges  and 
magistrates  of  the  land,  in  both  an  ecclesiastical  and  civil  re- 
spect.    Indeed  the  one  was  inseparably  connected  with  the 
other.     It  was  predicted  by  the  dying  Jacob,  that  the  posteri- 
ty of  Levi  should  be  scattered  in  Israel ;  Gen.  47:  7.     This 
was  necessary,  indeed,  according  to  the  arrangement  made 
by  Moses.     The  Levites  and  priests  were  the  appropriate 
jurisconsults  of  the  nation.    They  did  not  go  round,  and  preach 
and  teach  in  a  public  capacity ;  but  it  v/as  their  business  to 
settle  and  adjudicate  all  controversies  between  man  and  man  ; 
to  declare  the  law  in  all  cases  of  trespass  or  injury ;  to  de- 
cide all  dubious  cases  of  conscience  about  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies ;  to  give  counsel,  whenever  asked,  about  anything  which 
pertained  to  duty ;  and  in   a  word,  to  perform  the  office  of 
judges  and  of  religious  and  civil  monitors.     In  this  light  Eze- 
kiel  places  the  matter,  44:  23  seq.     So  Malachi,  2:  7.     Thus 
did  Jehoshaphat  regard  their  office,  specially  the  priestly  of- 
fice ;  2  Chron.  19:  8  seq.     In  the  same  light  Moses  has  pla- 
ced the  whole  matter;  Deut.  17:  8 — 10.  24:  9  Lev.  10:  10, 
11.     Ordinarily,  to  say  the  least,  and  at  any  rate  according 
to  strict  rule,  the  Levites  were  to  abide  in  the  cities  assigned  to 
them,  and  not  go  elsewhere  to  reside.     And  if  this  be  so,  how 
could  they  be  religious  teachers  in  synagogues,  (if  such  there 
had  been),  in  all  the  villages  of  Palestine  ? 

In  Judg.  17:  7  seq.  is  an  account  of  a  wandering  Levite, 
who,  at  the  invitation  of  Micah  at  mount  Ephraim,  took  up 
his  abode  with  him,  and  became  his  priest.  But  Micah  was 
an  idolater  (Judg.  17:  4,  5)  ;  and  the  Levite  of  course  must 
have  apostatized  from  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  in  order  to 
become  a  priest  of  Micah.  This  therefore  is  no  example  in 
point,  to  prove  that  the  Levites  ordinarily  wandered  through 
the  land,  taking  up  their  residence  wherever  it  might  suit  their 
convenience.  We  have  also  an  account  of  Jehoshaphat's 
sending  a  special  deputation  of  princes  and  Levites  "  to  teach 
in  the  cities  of  Judah"  (2  Chron.  17:  7  seq.),  who  carried  with 


^  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

them  a  copy  of  the  Law.  But  this  was  an  extraordinary,  not 
an  ordinary,  measure*  Indeed,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  shows  that  the  priests  or  Levites  were  tra- 
vehng  preachers  or  teachers ;  nothing  which  shows  that  they 
were  teachers  in  their  own  Hmited  circle,  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  that  word.  As  judges  and  jurisconsuks,  and  expounders 
of  the  Law  in  doubtful  cases,  and  helpers  in  matters  of  reli- 
gious doubts  or  scruples,  they  were  indeed  teachers.  But 
this  duty  they  performed  only  when  required  to  do  it.  They 
were  passive  in  the  business  of  teaching,  not  active  and  ag- 
gressive. It  was  their  business  to  give  an  opinion  when  ask- 
ed, but  not  to  persuade  others  to  assemble  and  learn  their  duty 
from  them. 

We  must,  in  justice  to  the  case  before  us,  proceed  one  step 
further  still.  I  know  of  no  passage  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  enjoins  upon  priests  or  Levites  as  their  ordinary  duty, 
to  pray  with  and  for  the  peoplt^,  and  to  give  them  religious 
instruction  by  sermons  or  by  reading  the  Scriptures.  If  there 
is  any  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  which  even  hints  at 
prayer  for  the  people  being  a  duty  of  the  priests  in  the  temple 
itself,  yea  of  even  the  high  priest,  it  has  escaped  my  repeated 
and  attentive  search.  I  doubt  not  that  all  pious  priests  did 
pray  in  the  temple.  I  cannot  doubt  that  every  pious  high 
priest  especially  would  intercede  for  the  people,  on  the  great 
day  of  atonement,  and  on  other  like  occasions.  But  where 
is  this  enjoined  ?  What  part  of  the  Mosaic  institutes  made  it 
their  duty  ? 

In  Luke  1:  10  seq.  we  have  an  account  of  Zacharias  in  the 
act  of  his  official  duty.  And  what  did  he  ?  He  burned  in- 
cense in  the  temple,  while  all  the  multitude  of  the  people  were 
praying  in  the  outer  court.  If  it  be  said  that  the  angel  who 
appears  to  him,  promises  the  birth  of  a  child  in  answer  to  his 
prayers  (Luke  1:  13),  yet  we  cannot  suppose  these  prayers 
to  have  been  then  and  there  uttered.  They  would  have  been 
unseemly,  unbecoming.  And  besides  this,  it  appears  from  v. 
18th,  that  Zacharias  had  for  a  long  time  utterly  despaired  of 
offspring,  and  therefore  we  cannot  suppose  him  to  have  been 


§  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

then  and  there  praying  for  what  he  plainly  deemed  impossible. 
Of  course  his  prayer,  to  which  the  angel  refers,  must  have  been 
on  some  former  occasion,  and  probably  in  a  place  more  ap- 
propriate to  such  a  request,  than  that  of  the  temple  of  God 
where  he  had  an  important  public  part  to  act. 

Let  the  intelligent  and  considerate  reader,  now,  put  all 
these  things  together,  and  ask  himself,  whether  there  were 
any  regular  and  stated  means  of  instruction  or  active  instruc- 
ters  for  the  Jewish  nation,  before  their  exile.  He  cannot 
find  them.  But  he  can  find,  on  extraordinary  occasions,  fast- 
ing, prayers,  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  a  renewal  of  the  cov- 
enant, and  other  religious  transactions.  But  all  this  is  noth- 
ing to  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  position,  that  before  the 
Babylonish  exile  there  were  synagogues  and  regular  and  sta- 
ted religious  teachers  of  the  people. 

One  remark  here  forces  itself  upon  me.  To  argue  from  a 
Levitical  priesthood  to  a  Christian  ministry^  and  to  prove  the 
validity  of  the  latter  institution  by  an  appeal  to  the  former, 
and  specially  to  compare  the  official  duties  of  the  two  respec- 
tive classes  with  an  assumption  that  they  are  parallel — is  out 
of  all  question.  The  ancient  ritual  is  abolished.  The  whole 
of  the  sacrifices  and  offerings,  and  of  course  the  whole  of  the 
rites  and  forms  belonging  to  them,  vs,  forever  done  away  by 
the  death  of  Christ,  if  any  credit  is  to  be  given  to  Paul,  par- 
ticularly in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  And  as  to  the  main 
official  duty  of  a  Christian  minister,  viz.  the  communication 
of  religious  instruction,  it  stands  as  it  were  even  in  direct 
contrast  with  that  of  the  priest  and  Levite,  so  far  as  all  its 
active  aggressive  functions  are  concerned.  If  Christian  min- 
isters are  to  find  any  pai-allel  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
it  must  be  in  its  prophets,  not  in  its  priests. 

To  complete  the  course  which  we  have  pursued,  in  making 
inquiry  respecting  the  state  of  literature  and  education  and 
religious  instruction  among  the  Hebrews,  it  is  necessary  that 
we  should  take  a  brief  view  of  the  prophetic  order  be- 
longing to  that  nation  ;  and  particularly  ought  we  to  do  this, 
because  of  the  relation  which  the  prophets  sustained  to  the 
8* 


90  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

Holy  Scriptures,  whose  critical  history  we  are  endeavouring 
to  pursue. 

The  word  prophet  has  had  a  variety  of  meanings  attached 
to  it  by  various  critics.  The  biblical  idea,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
is  fully  unfolded  and  designated  in  the  definition  which  Kno- 
bel  has  given  :  "  A  prophet  is  a  person  gifted  with  superior 
intelligence  and  filled  with  religious  inspiration,  who  stands 
in  an  intimate  relation  to  God,  and  as  the  servant  of  God  is 
active  in  the  promotion  of  religious  purposes,  specially  those 
which  concern  the  divine  authority  and  government ;"  Kno- 
bel,  Prophetismus,  I.  p.  113.  The  most  usual  name  of 
prophet  in  the   Old  Testament  Scriptures  is  ut'ins  .*     Other 

*  The  verb  5<32 ,  employed  only  in  Niphal  and  Hithpael,  Kno- 
bel  regards,  (and  rightly  in  my  apprehension),  as  related  to  the 
Hebrew  verbs  J-'SS ,  T|53 ,  HSS ,  !2^5 ,  all  of  which  mean  to  pour 
forth,  to  pour  oiit,  to  cry  out,  i.  e.  to  pour  fortli  words  or  sounds, 
to  shoot  or  stream  forth,  etc.  ;  and  kindred  to  these  are  the  Chal- 

V  y 

dee   rns ,  as? ,  nna ;  the    Syriac   \-Qj  ,    ^^tt^H  ;    the   Arabic 

j«jj  ,    kju  ,    ^^>~o  ;    all    kindred   in   meaning  to  the  Hebrew 

verbs  named  alK)ve.  Hence  5<25  seems  to  mean,  to  pour  forth 
or  pour  out,  i.  e.  to  utter  one's  internal  excitement  or  inspiration.  It 
is  not  difficult,  perhaps,  to  assign  a  good  philological  reason, 
why  the  verb  NS3 ,  J<22rri ,  is  used  only  in  the  reflexive  conjuga- 
tions ;  for  the  generic  meaning  of  these  verbs  thus  employed 
seems  to  be,  to  exhibit  one^s  self  as  excited  or  inspired.  Hence  the 
manifold  ajjplication  of  the  words  in  question  ;  for  they  apply 
not  only  to  uttering  predictions,  but  to  commination,  reproof, 
condemnation,  warning,  exhorting,  consoling,  exciting,  promis- 
ing, and  the  like.  In  a  word,  to  prophesy  embraces  everything 
which  a  religious  and  moral  teacher  may  say  or  utter  by  the  aid 
of  inspiration.  Of  course  it  applies  to  sacred  music,  i.  e.  to 
psalms  or  hymns  sung  either  with  or  without  instrumental  mu- 
sic;  see  I  Sam.  10:  5.  1  Chron.  25:  ],  2.  I  Sam.  ]9:20.  comp. 
1  Kings  18:  28, 29,  where  the  verb  is  applied  to  the  shouting  and 
cantillation  of  the  priests  of  Baal,  who  attemj)ted  an  imitation  of 
the  tiuc  prophets.  The  Jews,  as  every  reader  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  knows,  have  designated  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Sam- 
uel, and  Kings  as  prophetical  books,  probably  from  the  persua- 


§  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  f| 

not  unfrequent  names  of  prophets  are  nth  a  seer,  and  n!!<h  a 
beholder.  Of  course  the  meaning  is  one  par  excellence,  de- 
noting a  person  who  sees  or  beholds  what  others  do  not,  such 
as  secret  things,  future  events,  and  the  hke.  In  a  number  of 
cases  prophets  are  called  d^'S^J ,  i.  e.  those  who  espy,  explore, 
etc.  This  refers  to  the  appropriate  duty  of  prophets  as  the 
moral  guardians  and  observers  of  the  people.  In  the  same 
way  is  the  designation  '^•q^ ,  watchman,  employed,,  and  for  the 
like  reason.  In  reference  also  to  spiritual  care  for  the  peo- 
ple and  for  their  proper  religious  nurture,  the  prophets  are 
occasionally  named  d^l^H ,  shepherds.  In  regard  to  the  prop- 
er work  which  a  prophet  has  to  perform,  he  is  also  occasion- 
ally named  man  of  God,  servant  of  Jehovah,  and  now  and 
then  angel  or  messenger  of  Jehovah.  Among  these  appella- 
tions, inan  of  God  and  seer  are  the  more  ancient,  (see  1 
Sam.  9:  9)  ;  5<^:;3 ,  an  inspired  man,  is  more  general  after  the 
time  of  Samuel ;  and  spy,  watchman,  and  servant  of  Jehovah, 
appear  more  frequently  in  the  later  Hebrew  writers. 

If  the  reader  will  cast  his  eye,  for  a  moment,  over  the 
various  appellations  of  the  prophets  now  placed  before  him, 
he  will  gather  at  once,  with  a  good  degree  of  certainty,  what 
the  proper  office  and  duty  of  a  Hebrew  prophet  was.  In- 
stead of  being  a  mere  {idvrig,  i.  e.  a  superintendent  of  ritual 
observances,  a  soothsayer,  an  oracle-monger,  or  the  like,  he 
was  the  moral  teacher  and  preacher  of  his  nation.  His  duty 
was  not  like  to  that  of  the  priests;  although  occasionally 
some  of  the  prophets  superintended  sacrifices  and  other  parts 
of  the  ritual,  e.  g.  Samuel,  Elijah,  and  some  others.  All  that 
was  ritual,  however,  if  resorted  to  on  any  occasion  by  a 
prophet,  was  merely  subordinate  and  subsidiary,  and  not  his 
main  or  appropriate  business. 

sion  that  they  were  composed  by  propliels.  According  to  the 
broad  meaning  given  to  J^as  above,  any  book  composed  by  an 
inspired  writer  might  be  named  prophecy.  And  in  a  similar  lat- 
itude are  the  words  nQOcpi^itlu  and  noocprjitva)  employed  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  the  language  of  the  Bible,  the  uttering  of 
predictions,  in  the  appropriate  sense  of  this  word,  is  only  a  spe- 
cies under  the  genus  prophesying. 


92  §  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

The  Old  Testament  is  full  of  the  history,  doings,  and  say- 
ings of  the  prophets.  Nearly  one  half  of  it  consists  of  their 
peculiar  discourses  or  prophetic  compositions ;  of  which  only 
a  small  part  is  prediction  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word. 
Prophets  were  the  principal  instruments  in  keeping  alive  the 
Mosaic  religion  at  all  times,  whether  one  looks  to  the  spirit 
or  to  the  ritual  of  it.  Inasmuch  as  the  Jewish  Common- 
wealth was  ecclesiastico-political,  prophets  were  politicians  as 
well  as  preachers.  Nothing  is  more  common,  than  the  his- 
tory of  their  interposition  in  matters  that  concern  the  politi- 
cal weal  of  the  Jewish  State.  To  give  counsel  to  magis- 
trates, on  occasion  of  exigency,  was  regarded  as  one  of  their 
appropriate  duties. 

It  is  singular,  that  after  Moses  and  Miriam,  no  prophet  or 
prophetess  is  mentioned  until  the  time  of  Deborah,  which 
was  more  than  a  century  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  And 
even  she  seems  rather  to  be  called  a  prophetess  on  account  of 
her  song  of  triumph  (Judges  v.),  than  on  account  of  her  mode 
of  life.  It  is  clear  that  she  was  a  remarkable  woman  ;  for 
she  was  at  the  head  of  the  nation,  a  tiisBii: ,  when  she  led  on 

'  T  :        ' 

the  Hebrew  army  to  battle  against  Sisera ;  Judges  4:  4.  An 
anonymous  prophet  is  presented  to  view  in  Judges  6:  8  seq., 
who  administers  severe  rebuke.  Besides  these,  we  meet 
with  no  prophetic  personages  until  we  come  down  to  the 
time  of  Samuel,  which,  counting  from  the  death  of  Moses, 
makes  a  period  of  more  than  300  years.  If  there  were  no 
more  prophets  than  appear  on  the  face  of  the  sacred  records 
during  this  long  period,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  Jews,  who 
had  been  partially  idolaters  in  Egypt,  relapsed  very  often,  as 
the  book  of  Judges  tells  us  they  did,  into  the  idolatry  of  the 
heathen.  This  had  its  attractions.  It  put  no  restraint  on  the 
passions.  It  might  be,  (although  it  does  not  seem  probable), 
that  Priests  and  Levites  urged  the  ritual  of  the  Law,  and  ex- 
acted all  its  ceremonial  observances ;  but  if  they  did,  these 
would  have  had  but  little  efficacy  in  preserving  the  nation 
from  corruption,  so  long  as  prophets,  the  preachers  of  right- 
eousness, were  wanting. 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  93 

With  Samuel  opens  a  new  and  splendid  era,  both  as  to  the 
civil  and  religious  concerns  of  the  Jews.  This  distinguished 
servant  of  God  acted  not  only  as  prophet,  but  was  also  a 
judge  (^S'iiJ)  ;  and  not  unfrequently  did  he  act  as  a  priest; 
see  1  Samuel  7:  9  seq.  9:  22  seq.  10:  8.  11:  15.  16:  1  seq. 
He  commenced  his  duties  about  1100  B.  C,  and  the  prophet- 
ic order,  founded  (if  one  may  use  the  expression)  by  him, 
continued,  with  little  interruption,  down  to  the  time  of  Mala- 
chi,  i.  e.  about  400  B.  C.  Thus,  for  some  700  years,  was 
the  Jewish  nation  provided  with  religious  teachers,  by  spe- 
cial divine  interposition,  and  therefore  they  had  much  less 
apology  for  departure  during  this  time  from  the  institutions 
of  Moses,  than  they  had  in  former  days,  during  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Judges. 

Samuel  began  his  career  very  young,  and  nobly  did  he 
maintain  it  during  a  period  of  some  forty  years.  It  was  dur- 
ing his  life,  that  prophetic  institutiotis  or  schools  of  the  pro- 
phets first  made  their  appearance.  Doubtless  this  illustrious 
reformer  saw  and  felt  the  necessity  of  more  efficient  and  more 
widely  diffused  religious  instruction,  than  had  previously 
been  given.  The  young  men  educated  at  those  schools  seem 
plainly  to  have  been  designed  for  the  prophetic  office.  Hence 
they  are  frequently  named  prophets,  (e.  g.  1  Sam.  10:  5, 
10—12.  19:  20,  24.  1  Kings  18:  4,  13.  19:  14.  22:  6  seq.), 
in  relation  to  the  office  for  which  they  were  being  qualified. 
At  other  times,  their  discipleship  or  relation  to  their  prophet- 
ic masters  is  pointed  out  by  the  appellation  sons  of  the  pro- 
phets ;  e.  g.  1  Kings  20:  35.  2  Kings  2:  3,  5,  7,  15.  4:  1,  38. 
5:  22.  6:  1.  9:  1,  4.  The  Hebrews  often  called  a  teacher 
father  (n^)  ;  and  of  course  the  pupil  or  learner  was  a  son. 
So  in  the  New  Testament,  viog,  texvov,  and  te'aviov,  are  em- 
ployed to  designate  disciples  or  learners. 

The  notices  of  these  schools,  in  sacred  history,  are  confined 
to  the  time  of  Samuel,  and  to  that  of  Elijah  and  Elisha.  We 
find  nothing  concerning  them  at  other  periods.  If  such  schools 
existed  after  the  last-named  period,  it  would  seem  at  least  that 
they  could  not  have  had  any  considerable  notoriety.     In  Sam- 


94  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

uel's  time  there  were  large  companies  of  prophetic  pupils  in 
several  places ;   1  Sam.  10:  5,  10.  19:  20.     Ahab  could,  in 
his  day,  muster  400  prophets  of  Baal  at  a  time,  1  Kings  22:  6. 
Obadiah,  one  of  his  pious  officers,  concealed  100  of  the  pro- 
phets of  Jehovah,  from  Jezebel's  bloody  persecution  ;  1  Kings 
18:  4,  13.     Fifty  of  the  prophets  at  Bethel  attended  on  Elijah 
and  Elisha;  2  Kings  2:  3,  7.     Those  at  Jericho,  at  the  same 
time,  appear  to  have  been  still  more  numerous  ;    2  Kings  2: 
16  seq.  In  Elisha's  time,  we  find  100  of  the  prophets  at  Gilgal ; 
2  Kings  4:  38 — 43.     Various  places  also  are  named  as  the 
abode  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  viz.  Rama,  Bethel,  Gibeah, 
Jericho,  Gilgal,  and  mount  Ephraim.     They  appear,  more- 
over, to  have  lived  together  in  the  manner  of  Coenobites,  and 
to  have  been  superintended  and  instructed  by  some  aged 
prophet.     But  sacred  history  gives  us  no  minute  particulars 
as  to  the  manner  of  their  education.     Yet  doubtless,  as  there 
were  to  be  moral  and  religious  teachers,  the  Law  of  Moses 
must  have  been  the  subject  of  their  special  study.     Even 
Knobel,  who  maintains  the  later  composition  of  the  Pentateuch, 
asserts  that  they  must  have  been  orally  instructed  in  the  theo- 
cratical  Law  (as  he  names  it),  that  was  traditionally  current 
at  that  period ;  Proph.  IL  p.  46.     That  sacred  music,  with 
the  voice  and  with  instruments,  was  in  part  an  object  of  special 
attention,  is  clear  from  1  Sam.  10:  5.  19:  20.      Saul,  who 
meets  with  a  company  of  these  prophetic  musicians,  is  said, 
by  the  sacred  historian,  to  have  prophesied  along  with  them, 
because  he  united  in  their  music ;   1  Sam.  10:  6,  10 — 12.     It 
does  not  follow,  however,  that  all  who  attended  the  schools  of 
the  prophets,  did  actually  assume  the  prophetic  office  after 
quitting  the  schools  ;  but  it  is  altogether  probable,  'that  most 
of  the  religious  teachers  among  the  Jews,  from  the  time  of 
Samuel  down  to  the  death  of  Elisha,  (a  period  of  about  200 
years,)  were  first  learners  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets. 

That  the  notable  age  of  sacred  lyric  poetry  among  the  He- 
brews, during  which  David,  Asaph,  Heman,  Ethan,  the  sons 
of  Korah,  Solomon,  and  others,  were  so  conspicuous  as  poets, 
connects  itself  with  the  instructions  given  in  the  schools  of  the 


§  4.    LITEBATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  OS 

prophets,  one  cannot  well  doubt.  During  the  period,  more- 
over, between  Samuel  and  Elisha,  we  find  a  considerable 
number  of  distinguished  prophets,  as  well  as  poets  ;  e.  g.  Gad 
(2  Sam.  24:  11—13),  Nathan  (2  Sara.  12:  15),  Ahijah 
(1  Kings  11:  29  seq.),  Shemaiah  (1  Kings  12:  22),  several 
prophets  whose  names  are  not  given  (1  Kings  13:  1 — 3,  11), 
Iddo  (2  Chron.  9:  29),  Oded  (2  Chron.  15:  1),  Hanani 
(2  Chron.  16:  7),  Jehu  (2  Chron.  19:  2),  Jahaziel  (2  Chron. 
20: 14),  Ehezer  (2  Chron.  20:  37),  Elijah  (2  Chron.  21: 12), 
and  EHsha  (1  Kings  19:  16).  During  the  lives  of  these  two 
last  named  prophets,  we  find  repeated  mention  of  hundreds 
more  of  prophets,  many  or  most  of  whom  had  probably  been 
connected  as  pupils  with  the  schools  which  they  taught. 

As  to  all  the  prophets  now  in  view, -however,  although  some 
of  them  were  most  highly  distinguished  by  talents,  activity, 
and  usefulness,  we  have  no  remains  of  works  written  by  them, 
but  only  a  brief  account  by  others  of  their  sayings  or  doings 
on  particular  occasions,  which  is  contained  in  the  historical 
books  of  our  present  Scriptures.  It  is  an  assertion  of  the 
Talmudic  Rabbins  (Baba  Bathra  fol.  14.  c.  4.  comp.  fol.  15. 
c.  1),  that  "  Samuel  wrote  the  books  which  bear  his  name, 
and  also  the  books  of  Judges  and  Ruth."  The  two  latter,  i.  e. 
the  substance  of  them,  it  is  possible  that  he  wrote.  But  as 
to  the  two  books  of  Samuel,  they  are  out  of  the  question.  The 
death  of  Samuel  is  related  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  Consequently  he 
could  not  have  written  the  remainder.  Nor  is  it  probable 
that  he  wrote  what  precedes  chap.  xxv.  The  great  era  of 
prophetic  composition  commences  with  Joel,  Amos,  Hosea, 
and  Isaiah,  about  800 — 730  B.  C. 

From  the  more  circumstantial  history  of  Samuel,  Elijah,  and 
Elisha,  it  appears  that  they  continued  in  their  office  down  to 
the  time  of  their  decease.  In  other  words,  the  prophetic  of- 
fice, as  then  held  and  exercised,  seems  to  have  been  a  business 
of  life.  Was  this  so  with  all  the  prophets  who  have  been 
named  or  adverted  to  above  ?  Or  did  they  assume  the  office 
merely  for  a  temporary  exigency,  and  lay  it  aside  when  that 
exigency  had  passed  by  ? 


96  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

With  entire  certainty  we  cannot  answer  these  questions. 
As  to  most  of  the  prophets,  it  seems  to  me  more  probable  that 
they  held  their  office  permanently ;  for  the  moral  necessities 
of  the  people,  which  called  the  office  into  being,  seem  to  have 
been  such  as  to  render  the  continuance  of  it  highly  important 
and  useful.  TVe  meet  with  aged  prophets  ;  and  the  tenor  of 
the  narrations  respecting  this  order  of  men,  favors  the  idea  that 
the  office  was  one  which  was  regular  and  long  continued,  so 
far  as  it  respected  the  duty  of  moral  and  religious  teaching. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  assume  that  all  prophets  were  endowed 
with  miraculous  powers.  Such  was  not  the  case  even  with 
Christian  prophets,  if  we  may  credit  the  declarations  of  Paul 
in  his  account  of  their  gifts,  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans ;  and  I  know  of  no  testimony  more  authentic  than  his. 
But  the  fact  that  the  prophets  (d^5<"^3d)  were  inspired  persons, 
would  seem  of  course  to  indicate,  that  they  addressed  the  peo- 
ple under  the  special  aid  and  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
It  need  not,  and  should  not,  be  supposed,  that  at  all  times, 
and  on  all  occasions,  these  prophets  spoke  and  acted  under 
such  a  special  guidance.  So  much  was  not  true  of  even  the 
apostles  of  Christ.  Enough  that  at  due  times,  and  in  ap- 
propriate circumstances,  they  were  specially  guided  and  aid- 
ed by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Their  sermons  or  addresses  to  the  people  they  did  not,  as 
it  would  seem,  commit  to  writing  at  the  period  in  question. 
We  have  therefore,  at  the  present  time,  only  some  fragments 
of  what  they  uttered,  which  were  collected  and  recorded  by 
others.  It  is  natural  to  conclude  from  this,  that  they  regard- 
ed themselves  as  ministers  of  God  and  servants  of  the  theocra- 
cy, only  for  their  own  day  and  generation.  The  permanent 
monuments  of  the  prophetic  class  are  of  a  later  date,  and 
commence  with  Joel,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah. 

A  glance  at  facts  such  as  these,  specially  if  we  view  them 
as  they  stand  connected  with  and  related  to  each  other,  would 
seem  to  admonish  us  quite  plainly,  that  in  the  prophetic  order, 
if  we  except  Moses  the  distinguished  founder  of  the  Jewish 
Commonwealth,  a  gradual  advance  to  higher  degrees  of  cul- 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  9f 

ture  and  usefulness  is  perceptible.  Who,  except  Moses,  can 
compete  with  those  prophets,  whose  immortal  works  are  still 
so  conspicuous  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  ?  We  do  truly  re- 
vere and  honour  such  men  as  Samuel,  Elijah,  and  others  of 
the  like  spirit ;  but  we  do  more  than  homage  or  honour  to  such 
men  as  Isaiah,  Joel,  Nahum,  and  their  compeers. 

To  the  canon  of  Scripture  some  considerable  accession  was 
made  as  early  as  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon.  There 
might  have  been  a  part  of  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges 
extant  at  that  period ;  and  if  so,  these,  with  the  Law  of  Mo- 
ses, constituted  the  then  Jewish  Canon.  David  and  his  con- 
temporary sacred  poets  made  very  valuable  accessions  to  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  ;  especially  to  the  devotional  part  of  them. 
Down  to  the  present  hour,  the  compositions  of  these  men  are 
regarded  as  excelling  those  of  any  or  all  others,  in  respect  to 
their  adaptedness  to  be  the  medium  of  praise  and  of  devout 
meditation.  I  will  not  say,  that  these  compositions  introduced 
a  new  element  into  the  Jewish  religion  and  worship ;  but  I 
may  safely  affirm,  that  at  least  they  made  a  new  development 
of  the  Mosaic  religion,  and  gave  to  all  ages  then  to  come 
some  of  the  most  exquisite  models  of  expressing  devout,  grate- 
ful, humble,  and  pious  feeling.  They  will  go  down  to  the  end 
of  the  world  with  unabated,  yea  with  increasing  honor.  The 
greater  part  of  the  book  of  Psalms  was  composed  by  David 
and  his  contemporaries  ;  and  the  few  Psalms  that  have  been 
since  added,  show  that  sacred  lyrics  among  the  Hebrews,  had 
its  golden  age  and  also  its  silver  one,  and  that  the  golden  age 
commenced,  and  attained  its  highest  elevation,  under  David 
and  his  contemporaries.  Only  now  and  then  did  some  pecu- 
liar occasion  afterwards  call  into  exercise  talents  of  a  lyric  na- 
ture, in  the  composition  of  devotional  psalms  and  hymns. 

The  book  of  Proverbs,  moreover,  must  have  been  a  sub- 
stantial aid  to  the  prophetic  teachers  of  morals.  It  would 
seem,  however,  that  from  the  25th  chapter  onward,  the  com- 
position lay  in  an  uncopied  Ms.,  until  the  time  of  Hezekiah ; 
Prov.  25:  1.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  the  preceding  portion  of 
the  book  is  exceedingly  weighty,  particularly  on  the  score  of 

9 


98  §  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

morals  and  circumspect  and  prudential  behaviour.  Prophets 
who  lived  after  the  writing  of  this,  certainly  had  a  somewhat 
ample  store  of  choice  texts,  for  discourses  on  the  subject  of 
morality  and  sober  demeanour. 

I  have  distinguished  David  and  his  colleagues,  the  devo- 
tional poets,  from  the  prophets,  who  were  the  subject  of  our 
preceding  consideration.  But  in  so  doing,  I  have  rather  fol- 
lowed our  own  common  usus  loquendi  than  that  which  is  ap- 
propriate to  the  Scriptures.  Whatever  is  written  or  uttered  by 
the  aid  of  inspiration,  the  scriptural  writers  name  prophecy. 
The  ground  of  employing  the  word  in  this  extensive  sense, 
has  already  been  presented  in  the  preceding  pages. 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  next  and  most  splendid  period  of 
the  Hebrew  prophetic  development.  It  begins  with  Joel,  in 
the  reign  of  Uzziah,  about  800  B.  C,  and  continues  down  to 
the  end  of  the  Assyrian  dominion,  not  far  from  700  B.  C. 
It  has  been  named  the  Assyrian  period  by  Knobel,  because 
most  of  the  prophets  during  this  period  have  reference  more 
or  less,  in  their  discourses,  to  the  Assyrian  invasions  of  Pales- 
tine, or  to  those  of  the  neighbouring  countries  of  the  heathen 
who  were  under  the  dominion  of  Assyria,  or  were  associated 
with  it. 

It  would  not  be  consistent  with  my  main  design,  to  discuss 
such  questions  respecting  each  prophetic  book,  as  belong  only 
to  the  speciahties  of  an  ample  and  scientific  introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament.  I  shall  not  therefore  enter  into  any  mi- 
nute discussions,  the  particular  object  of  which  would  be  to 
vindicate  the  genuineness  of  those  prophetical  books  which  bear 
the  names  of  their  authors.  Nor  will  the  plan  of  my  work 
permit  me  to  canvass  at  length  the  question,  whether  particu- 
lar parts  of  Isaiah,  for  example,  or  of  Zechariah,  or  of  Daniel, 
are  supposititious  ;  which  two  last  works,  however,  belong  to 
a  later  period  than  the  one  with  which  I  am  now  concerned, 
unless  indeed  (with  Knobel  and  some  others)  we  attribute 
Zech.  ix — xi.  to  tl«e  Zechariah  the  son  of  Berechiah  men- 
tioned in  Isa.  8:  2.  Enough  for  my  purpose,  that  the  Old 
Testament  books  which  bear  the  names  of  their  authors,  were 


§  4,    LITERATTJRE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  99 

€xtant,  and  were  acknowledged  by  the  Jewish  nation  as  gen- 
uine works,  before  and  at  the  period  in  which  Malachi,  the 
last  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  lived ;  that  they  were  regarded 
as  inspired  and  authoritative  ;  and  that  Christ  and  his  apostles 
have  sanctioned  them  as  such.  On  the  general  subject  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  I  shall  produce,  in  the 
sequel,  a  striking  passage  from  Eichhorn.  Their  autHority 
or  sanction  does  not  depend  on  the  fact,  whether  this  prophet 
or  that  one  wrote  a  particular  book,  or  parts  of  it,  but  on  the 
fact  that  a  prophet  wrote  them.  Of  course,  this  is  my  main 
point.  And  since  I  am  not  now  writing  a  critico-exegetical 
introduction  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  I  may  dispense  in 
general  with  all  questions  which  belong  merely  to  minute  and 
special  criticism.  My  object  leads  me  to  bring  to  view  the 
Jewish  sacred  books  as  regarded  in  a  general  way ;  and  I 
may  be  permitted  to  treat  them,  when  they  are  not  anonymous, 
as  proceeding  from  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear. 

When  I  mention  then,  as  belonging  to  the  period  in  ques- 
tion, the  works  of  Joel,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  Amos,  Micah,  and  Na- 
hura,  (and  perhaps  Jonah),  I  need  say  nothing  more  to  char- 
acterize this  golden  age  of  the  prophets  in  the  capacity  of 
writers.  Isaiah  is  surely  without  a  parallel ;  and  as  for  Joel 
and  Nahum,  all  effort  to  commend  them  to  readers  of  taste 
would  be  useless.  In  the  other  prophets  just  named,  there  are 
passages  of  great  splendour  ;  and  in  all  of  them  there  is  such 
a  lofty  tone  of  piety,  and  zeal  for  God  and  his  honour,  with 
such  inflexible  morality,  as  almost  transports  the  reader  into 
New  Testament  times.  Indeed  one  may  well  compare  the 
spiritual  and  elevated  views  of  these  writers,  with  the  leading 
principles  of  the  gospel-dispensation  as  developed  by  our  Sa- 
viour in  his  conversation  with  the  woman  of  Samaria ;  John 
4: 19  seq.     Let  us  listen  for  a  moment  to  Isaiah  : 

"  What  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  to  me,  saith  Jehovah  ? 
I  am  satiated  with  the  offerings  of  rams  and  of  fatted  beasts  ; 
The  blood  of  bullocks  and  of  lambs  and  of  he-goats  I  do  not  desire. 
When  ye  come  to  exhibit  yourselves  before  me, 
Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands — the  treading  of  my  courts  ? 
Bring  no  more  worthless  offerings; 


100  §  4.   LITERATURE    OF   THE    HEBREWS. 

Incense ! — it  is  an  abomination  to  me. 

As  to  your  new  moons  and  sabbatlis  and  summoning  of  assemblies, 

I  cannot  endure  iniquity  and  solemn  meeting. 

Your  monthly  festivals  and  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hateth  ; 

They  are  a  burden  to  me,  I  cannot  bear  with  them. 

And  when  ye  spread  outyour  hands,  I  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you, 

Yea,  when  ye  multiply  prayer,  I  will  not  hear. 

Yoiu:  hands  are  full  of  blood. 

Wash  ye  ;  make  ye  clean  ; 

Put  away  your  "evil  deeds  from  before  mine  eyes  ; 

Cease  to  do  evil ;  learn  to  do  well ; 

Seek  after  justice  ;  console  the  afflicted  ; 

Vindicate  the  orphan;    plead  the  cause  of  the  widow." 

TVho  cannot  easily  imagine  himself  to  be  listening  to  the 
Great  Teacher,  the  Light  of  the  world,  when  he  hears  such 
a  passage  as  this  ?  And  many  such,  i.  e.  of  the  like  tenor  with 
this,  are  there  in  the  works  of  the  prophets  now  before  us. 
In  respect  to  the  so  called  Pseudo-Isaiah  and  Jonah,  placed 
by  recent  critics  among  the  works  of  the  second  or  Chaldee 
period  of  prophecy,  I  shall  notice  them  in  my  remarks  on  that 
period. 

The  last  king  of  Assyria,  of  whom  any  mention  is  made  in 
the  sacred  records,  was  Esar-haddon,  who  sent  colonists  from 
his  dominions  into  the  land  of  the  ten  tribes,  about  678  B.  C. ; 
Ez.  4:  2.  He  was  the  last  of  the  Assyrian  kings,  who  ap- 
pears to  have  possessed  any  great  degree  of  energy  and  ac- 
tivity. At  all  events,  we  hear  no  more  of  incursions  into  Ju- 
dea,  after  his  reign  ;  and  it  was  but  some  fifty  years  after- 
wards, that  Nabopolassar,  a  tributary  king  of  the  Babylonian 
province,  threw  off  the  yoke  of  Assyria,  and  made  Babylon 
an  independent  kingdom.  His  son  Nebuchadnezzar  enlarged 
its  borders,  and  became  master  of  the  greater  part  of  Asia 
west  of  the  Euphrates.  To  Babylon  then  are  we  to  look, 
from  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Josiah  onward,  for  most  of 
the  annoyances  which  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  experi- 
enced during  its  last  period  before  the  exile  ;  and  most  of  the 
prophets  who  lived  from  the  time  of  Josiah  onward  to  the  end 
of  the  captivity,  in  their  writings  still  extant,  refer  principally 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  101 

to  Babylon,  or  the  land  of  the  Chaldees  (which  is  the  same), 
or  to  some  of  its  tributaries  or  allies,  as  the  enemies  whom  the 
Hebrews  have  most  reason  to  dread.  Hence,  in  classifying 
the  prophets  with  reference  to  a  predominating  element  in 
their  discourses,  we  may  name  this  latter  period,  in  which  the 
prophetic  order  were  somewhat  conspicuous,  the  Chaldean 

PERIOD. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  from  the  year  710  B.  C.  down  to 
640  B.  C,  i.  e.  for  seventy  years,  scarcely  a  vestige  of  any 
Hebrew  prophet  is  to  be  found  in  the  Jewish  history.  No 
wonder  at  this.  The  fifty-seven  years  of  unrelenting  perse- 
cution of  the  true  worshippers  of  God,  and  the  rank  and  zeal- 
ous idolatry  even  of  the  grossest  kind  which  made  up  the 
reigns  of  Manasseh  and  of  Amon,  must  needs  have  cast  off  or 
driven  away  all  the  true  prophets  of  God.  At  first  there  seem 
to  have  been  some  who  warned  Manasseh  (2  Chron.  33:  10), 
but  he  would  not  hearken  to  them.  And  so  entirely  does  the 
holy  land  appear  to  have  been  destitute  of  prophets,  in  conse- 
quence of  persecution  and  idolatry,  that  they  did  not  make 
their  appearance  again,  so  far  as  we  know,  until  some  time 
during  the  reign  of  Josiah  ;  2  Chron.  34:  8,  22.  Under  him 
we  find  Zephaniah  predicting  the  destruction  of  Assyria  and 
its  capital,  Nineveh,  2:  13 — 15,  which  took  place  about  that 
time.  Moreover  Huldah,  a  prophetess,  is  consulted  by  Jo- 
siah and  Hilkiah,  on  the  occasion  of  finding  a  copy  of  the  Law 
in  the  temple  ;  2  Chron.  34:  22.  Jeremiah  began  his  pro- 
phetic duties  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah,  i.  e.  629  B.  C. 
If  Zech.  xii — xiv.  belongs  to  an  older  prophet  than  the  Zech- 
ariah  who  lived  after  the  return  from  exile,  it  should  probably 
be  assigned  to  the  period  about  607 — 604  B.  C.  (See  Knobel, 
Proph.  11.  p.  280  seq.)  At  the  same  period  the  prophecy  of 
Habakkuk  may  most  probably  be  placed.  Ezekiel,  who  was 
carried  into  exile  about  600  B.  C,  began  his  prophetic  work 
about  595  B.  C,  and  continued  it  until  573.  The  greater 
part  of  his  prophecies  relate  to  his  countrymen  who  still  re- 
mained in  Palestine,  after  the  deportation  to  Mesopotamia 
in  the  reign  of  Jehoiachin.  But  some  of  them  relate  to  his 
9* 


102  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

fellow-countrymen  in  exile  with  himself.  The  brief  work  of 
Obadiah  seems,  by  the  historical  circumstances  to  which  it  re- 
fers, plainly  to  belong  to  the  period  of  the  exile.  His  prophecy 
is  directed  against  the  Edomites  ;  and  one  may  compare  with 
it  Jer.  49:  7—22.  Ezek.  25: 12—14.  35: 1—15.  Those  who 
maintain  the  late  composition  of  Isa.  xl — Ixvi.,  also  compare 
Isa.  63: 1 — 6  with  the  prophecy  of  Obadiah  ;  and  it  seems  to 
tally  well  with  tliis  and  with  the  other  prophecies  just  named. 
The  turn  which  recent  criticism  has  taken,  among  a  large 
class  of  commentators  and  writers  on  subjects  of  sacred  litera- 
ture in  Germany,  with  respect  to  various  and  extensive  por- 
tions of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  must  be  well  known  to  all  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  recent  history  of  sacred  literature. 
As  I  have  already  said,  it  comports  not  with  my  present  ob- 
ject minutely  to  discuss  the  questions  in  regard  to  this  matter, 
which  have  recently  sprung  up.  But  I  must  at  least  touch 
upon  this  topic,  although  as  summarily  as  may  be. 

No  allegations  are  made  at  present  with  more  confidence 
by  many,  than  that  Is.  xl — Ixvi.  belongs  to  a  writer  near  the 
close  of  the  exile,  to  whom  Cyrus  was  known  by  name,  and 
whose  intentions  he  well  understood.  To  the  same  period,  but 
(as  most  of  these  critics  suppose)  to  a  different  author,  is  to  be 
assigned  Is.  xiii.  xiv.  In  their  opinion,  to  the  author  of  the 
latter,  perhaps,  belongs  Is.  21: 1 — 10  ;  at  any  rate,  it  must  be 
assigned,  as  they  aver,  to  the  close  of  the  exile.  Isa.  xxiv — 
xxvii.  belongs,  as  some  of  the  latest  critics  say,  (e.  g.  Knobel), 
to  a  prophet  who  lived  near  the  beginning  of  the  exile.  Isa. 
xxxiv.  XXXV.  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  middle  of  the  exile. 
Thus  we  have,  if  we  may  believe  these  critics,  no  less  than 
five  or  six  works  of  so  many  different  prophets,  in  our  present 
book  of  Isaiah. 

A  few  hints  I  may  be  permitted  to  suggest,  in  relation  to 
this  critical  theory.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  pressed  with  some 
serious  difficulties,  from  which  no  adequate  relief  has  yet  been 
found. 

(I)  All  ancient  Jewish  and  Christian  tradition  is  against 
it.     So  far  back  as  Sirachides,  we  have  express  testimony  of 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  103 

the  Jewish  views.  He  calls  Isaiah  "  the  great  prophet,  and 
faithful  (or,  worthy  of  credit,  morog)  in  his  vision."  He 
speaks  of  him  as  comforting  Zion,  and  showing  "  the  things 
that  would  happen  'ioog  tov  aiojvog,  forever,  and  hidden  things 
before  they  take  place  ;"  48:  22 — 25.  Does  not  this  specially 
refer  to  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah  ?  So  Philo,  Josephus,  and 
the  New  Testament  in  very  many  places  from  the  so-called 
Pseudo-Isaiah,  (indeed  altogether  most  frequently  is  this  part 
of  the  book  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament),  which  are  as- 
cribed to  Isaiah  ;  and  so  the  Christian  Fathers  and  the  Tal- 
mud. The  discovery  of  diverse  authors  is  one  that  is  ac- 
knowledged to  have  been  made  but  a  few  years  since. 

(2)  The  discrepance/  of  diction,  which  is  even  confidently 
alleged  to  be  a  satisfactory  proof  of  different  authorship  in  the 
various  parts  of  the  book,  in  my  apprehension  has  no  soUd 
basis  adequate  to  support  this  allegation.  The  several  parts 
of  the  book  which  are  conceded  to  Isaiah,  between  chap.  xiii. 
and  xxxix,  are  in  general  more  discrepant  from  the  first 
twelve  chapters  (acknowledged  to  be  genuine),  than  some  of 
those  genuine  chapters  are  from  the  alleged  interpolated  por- 
tions of  the  book.  In  other  words  ;  Isaiah  differs  more  from 
himself,  than  he  does  from  others.  These  portions,  moreover, 
which  are  said  to  be  interpolated,  are  so  widely  distant  from 
the  idiom  of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  other  Hebrew  prophets 
during  and  after  the  exile ;  they  have  so  little  of  the  later  so- 
called  degenerate  Hebrew  idiom  in  them ;  that  to  my  mind 
they  present  a  very  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of  believing 
that  they  could  have  been  written  near  the  close  of  the  exile, 
or  even  at  the  middle,  or  the  beginning  of  it.  So  very  differ- 
ent from  the  work  before  us  are  the  productions  of  this  period, 
in  regard  to  diction  and  style,  that  even  the  Liberalists  feel 
compelled  to  confess,  that  the  Pseudo-Isaiah  was  a  writer  of 
rare  talents  at^imitation  of  the  ancients,  and  they  even  al- 
lege, that  he  has  copied  from  the  true  Isaiah.  I  cannot  here 
exemplify  and  confirm  the  position,  that  the  resemblances 
between  the  confessedly  genuine  parts  of  Isaiah  and  the  sus- 
pected parts  of  his  book,  are  so  many  and  so  striking,  that  even 


104  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBllEWS. 

De  Wette  confesses  that  "  they  must  arise  from  imitation  or 
sonstwie,  i.  e.  in  some  otlier  way !"  Einl.  p.  288.  To  the 
some  other  loay  in  which  these  resemblances  arose,  we  may 
assent ;  but  not  to  the  assertion  that  the  writer  in  question  was 
an  imitator.  I  can  only  refer  the  reader,  for  an  ample  statement, 
to  Kleinert's  Aechtheit^des  Esaias,  p.  220 — 279,  and  to  Ha- 
vernick's  Spezielle  Ei7ileit.  Esai.  p.  192  seq.  Every  discrim- 
inating reader  well  versed  in  the  Hebrew  must  feel,  as  I 
think,  that  there  is  indeed,  in  some  respects,  a  notable  differ- 
ence between  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  Isaiah  and 
the  first  part  of  his  work.  It  seems  to  me  that  candour  will 
not — need  not  deny  this.  But,  as  I  have  intimated  above, 
this  difference  is  not  so  great,  in  my  apprehension,  as  the  dif- 
ference between  the  first  twelve  chapters  of  Isaiah  and  other 
acknowledged  parts  of  his  work  between  chap.  xiii.  and 
xxxix.  Let  any  one  compare  the  circle  of  imagery,  the 
sources  of  metaphor  and  comparison,  the  historical  examples 
of  ancient  times  appealed  to  in  both  parts  of  the  book,  the 
absence  of  particular  visions  and  symbolical  actions  in  both, 
the  insertion  of  triumphant  lyrical  songs,  and  the  like,  and 
he  cannot  refuse  to  recognize  most  striking  similarities ; 
see  Havernick  ut  sup.  p.  191.  '  They  that  be  for  the  anti- 
quity of  the  alleged  adscititious  portions  of  the  book,  are  more 
than  they  that  be  against  it.'  I  am  persuaded,  that  the  Neol- 
ogists  have  evidently  the  worst  of  the  argument  on  this 
ground ;  and  this  is  a  ground  which  they  are  prone  to  con- 
sider as  one  of  their  choice  positions  for  defence. 

(3)  What  example  is  there,  among  all  the  prophets,  of  a 
book  so  patched  up  by  putting  together  six  different  authors, 
five  of  them  without  any  names  ?  Who  did  this  ?  Where, 
when,  was  it  done  ?  If  parts  of  the  book  are  so  late  as 
is  alleged,  why  have  we  no  hint  about  its  compilation,  no 
certain  internal  evidence  of  it  ?  How  can  we  account  for  it 
that  all  the  minor  prophets,  even  Obadiah  with  his  one  chap- 
ter, should  be  kept  separate  and  distinct,  and  this  even  down 
to  the  end  of  the  prophetic  period,  and  yet  Isaiah  be  made  up 
by  undistinguished  fragments  and  amalgamations?     These 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  105 

surely  are  serious  difficulties ;  and  they  have  not  yet  been 
satisfactorily  met. 

(4)  In  numerous  places  of  chap,  xli — xlviii,  the  prophet 
appeals  to  his  own  predictions  concerning  Babylon's  fall,  as  ut- 
tered long  before  the  time  of  fulfilment.  Even  Rosenmueller 
confesses  (iii.  p.  5,  6),  that  '  the  writer,  who  lived  near  the 
close  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  has  assumed  the  personage  of 
some  ancient  prophet.'  This  same  prophet  adverts  to  local- 
ities  and  nations,  to  which  it  would  be  very  strange  for  a  Jew 
in  exile  to  advert  to.  E.  g.  41:  9,  where  he  speaks  of  Israel 
as  being  "  taken  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,"  i.  e.  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees ;  which  would  do  well  in  case  he  was  in  Palestine, 
but  be  quite  incongruous  if  he  were  in  Chaldaea.  As  to  na- 
tions; Egypt,  the  land  of  Sinim  (49:  12)  i.  e.  probably  the 
Pelusiotes,  the  appeal  to  offerings  of  swine  (65:  4)  which 
were  made  in  .Egypt  but  not  in  Babylon,  the  frequent  appeals 
and  addresses  to  Jerusalem  and  the  towns  of  Palestine,  all 
seem  to  betoken  the  presence  of  the  writer  in  the  holy  land, 
and  his  famiharity  with  objects  there  and  in  the  neighbor- 
hood. Then  the  historical  relations  are  to  be  added  to  these. 
Egypt  and  Aethiopia  are  joined,  and  also  the  Sabaeans ; 
45:  14.  In  41:  11,  12,  the  active  and  assailing  enemies  of 
those  addressed  are  mentioned ;  but  who  were  they,  during 
the  exile  ?  In  52:  4,  the  writer  adverts  to  the  past  captivi- 
ties of  the  Jews,  and  mentions  only  those  of  Egypt  and  As- 
syria. Plow  could  he  omit  that  of  Babylon,  if  it  had  taken 
place?  In  Isa.  66:  19,  the  Jewish  exiles  are  represented  as 
being  gathered  only  from  countries  connected  with  Egyptian 
or  Assyrian  sway.  These  things  have  not  been  satisfactori- 
ly explained  by  the  recent  liberal  critics.  I  am  not  aware 
how  they  can  be. 

(5)  In  chap,  xl — xlvii,  are  very  many  passages  which  are 
addressed  to  a  people  under  the  influence  of  idols,  and  who 
practice  heathen  rites ;  and  they  are  reproved  for  not  pre- 
senting the  offerings  due  to  God.  How  could  this  be,  while 
the  Jews  were  in  exile  ?  They  served  no  idols  then  and 
there ;  and  how  could  they  be  reproved  for  not  presenting 


106  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

offerings  there,  which  could  be  lawfully  presented  nowhere 
but  at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  ?  Besides,  the  people  ad- 
dressed are  represented  as  seeking  foreign  alliances.  Could 
the  Jews  in  exile  do  this  ?  Chap.  66:  3,  4,  describes  the  Jews 
as  presenting  hypocritical  oblations  and  sacrifices.  How, 
where,  when, — in  the  land  of  Chaldaea  ?  Even  Ewald  feels 
obliged  to  concede  (in  Es.  II.  p.  409  seq.),  that  he  finds  no 
mai-ks  of  the  author's  being  in  Babylonia,  but  the  contrary. 

(6)  It  seems  to  be  evident,  that  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah  is 
quoted  or  imitated  by  prophets  who  lived  before  the  exile  ; 
comp.  Nah.  1:  15  and  Isa.  52:  1,  7.  See  also  Nah.  3:  7  and 
Isa.  51:  19.  Nah.  3:  4,  5  and  Isa.  47:  5,  9.  So  Habakkuk  in 
2:  18,  19,  comp.  with  Isa.  44:  9 — 20.  In  Zephaniah  are  sev- 
eral passages  of  the  same  tenor.  Jeremiah  has  strowed  pas- 
sages through  his  whole  book,  which  lean  upon  the  latter 
part  of  Isaiah  ;  particularly  in  chap.  1.  li,  which,  one  might 
almost  say,  are  made  up  of  extracts  from  this  prophet ;  see 
Havern.  Einl.  p.  180.  Finally,  2  Chron.  32:  32,  not  merely 
refers  for  authority,  as  to  the  history  of  Hezekiah,  to  the  Vis- 
ion of  Isaiah  (chap,  xxxvi — xxxix.),  but  also  to  an  old  book, 
the  Booh  of  the  Kings  of  Jvdah  and  Israel,  which  had  drawn 
from  the  same  source  ;  see  Hav.  II.  1.  p.  198  seq.  At  all 
events,  when  the  author  of  Chronicles  wrote,  the  book  of 
Isaiah  was  a  definite  and  well  known  book. 

It  were  easy  to  add  to  these  evidences  of  earlier  composi- 
tion— and  of  composition  in  the  holy  land.  But  my  limits 
forbid.  I  would  merely  repeat,  in  the  way  of  comment, 
what  I  said  at  the  outset,  viz.  that  the  recent  opinions  re- 
specting adscititious  parts  of  Isaiah,  are  embarrassed  by  very 
serious  difficulties,  which  have  not  yet  been  satisfactorily  met. 

As  to  all  the  objections  made  to  the  early  composition  of 
the  alleged  Pseudo-Isaiah,  on  the  ground  that  'prediction,  so 
long  before  hand  as  the  time  of  Isaiah  the  Son  of  Amoz,  is 
an  impossibility,  I  have  only  to  say,  that  this  is  assumption 
and  not  argument — it  is  sim^\y  petitio  pri?icipii.  Even  if, 
with  most  of  the  neological  critics,  we  put  off  the  composi- 
tion of  that  portion  of  the  book  to  a  period  little  before  the 


§  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  107 

exile,  it  is  still  prediction  ;  for  how  could  any  one  foresee 
what  Cyrus  would  do,  either  as  to  the  destruction  of  Baby- 
lon, or  the  liberation  of  the  Jews  ?  But  when  the  composi- 
tion of  these  parts  of  Isaiah  is  brought  down  very  near  to 
the  time  of  the  events  described,  our  sharp-sighted  critics  say, 
that  a  shrewd  political  observer  might  easily  conjecture  what 
would  take  place ;  as  Burke  foretold  what  would  follow  in 
the  train  of  the  French  revolution.  It  happened,  as  they 
suggest,  that  he  made  a  lucTcy  guess.  But  what  if  it  had 
turned  out,  that  the  Babylonians  had  been  victors,  in  the  con- 
test with  Cyrus  ?  '  Why  then  (as  they  intimate)  the  Pseudo- 
Isaiah  would  have  stood  in  no  repute,  and  his  work  would 
never  have  come  down  to  us.' 

In  respect  to  this,  and  all  that  is  like  it,  I  have  only  to  say, 
that  it  is  not  critical  argument,  but  a  mere  result  of  the  a 
priori  assumption,  that  prediction  is  an  impossibility. 

An  impartial  view  of  the  subject  before  us,  however, 
obliges  us  to  say,  that  the  recent  critics  who  contend  for  a 
Pseudo- Isaiah,  are  not  wholly  destitute  of  reasons,  some  of 
which,  to  say  the  least,  are  quite  specious.  They  allege, 
(1)  That  the  later  writer  does  not  so  much  describe  an  exile 
which  is  to  he,  as  one  which  is.  In  this  state,  he  thinks,  and 
feels,  and  speaks.  He  describes  desolations  in  Judea  and  in 
Edom,  which  had  already  taken  place  ;  e.  g.  in  chap.  Ixiii. 
Ixiv,  and  elsewhere.  He  dwells  on  these  things ;  repeats 
them ;  goes  into  minute  particulars  which  savour  of  the  his- 
torical rather  than  of  the  prophetical.  All  this  is  contrary  to 
the  genius  of  any  prophecy,  which  for  a  long  time  precedes 
the  events  described. 

(2)  The  mention  by  name  of  Cyrus  (44:  28.  45:  1),  is 
without  parallel.  The  fact  of  such  a  mention  shows,  that 
Cyrus  was  already  on  the  throne. 

(3)  Predictions  so  long  before  hand  as  the  time  of  Isaiah, 
when  Babylon  was  a  mere  provincial  and  tributary  kingdom 
belonging  to  the  Assyrian  domain,  could  be  of  no  interest  to 
the  then  living  generation.  Neither  Isaiah  nor  they  knew 
or  cared  anything  about  Babylon.     It  looks  like  mere  sooth- 


108  §  4.   LITERA-TURE  OP  THE  HEBREWS. 

saying  or  fortune-telling,  to  utter  such  predictions  at  such  a 
period.  And  above  all,  how  could  Isaiah  himself  say  so 
much  about  deliverance  from  exile,  and  dwell  so  long  and 
minutely  upon  it,  when  he  has  said  nothing  of  the  Jews  being 
carried  away  into  captivity,  nor  uttered  any  threats  of  this 
nature  ? 

(4)  The  whole  strain  is  hortatory,  and  addressed  (in  this 
shape)  to  those  then  living  in  exile.  The  writer  addresses 
them  as  having  present  duties  to  do ;  prays  for  them  as  al- 
ready in  distress  and  danger ;  and  in  fact  adjusts  his  whole 
discourse  as  if  it  were  an  epistle  to  the  exiles. 

(5)  The  writer,  in  chap,  xl — xlvii,  appeals  to  ancient  pro- 
phecy respecting  the  Babylonish  exile.  In  Isaiah's  time, 
who  was  there  that  had  already  written  such  predictions  ? 

(6)  Why  does  not  Jeremiah,  when  he  predicts  the  return 
from  exile  (xxix.  xxx.  al.),  appeal  to  the  predictions  of 
Isaiah,  in  the  way  of  confirmation,  in  case  they  already  ex- 
isted ? 

These  are  the  main  arguments  on  which  they  rely,  with 
the  exception  of  those  drawn  from  the  impossibility  of  mira- 
cles, and  from  the  style  and  manner  of  the  alleged  adscititious 
parts.  A  few  remarks  only  can  be  made  here  respecting  them. 

As  to  No.  2,  which  respects  the  mention  of  Cyrus  by  name, 
the  passage  in  1  King  13:  2  is  a  parallel  case.  Agag,  in  Num. 
24:  7,  seems  to  be  another.  Besides,  the  name  Cy?^us  is,  in 
all  probability,  like  that  of  Pharaoh,  a  mere  noynen  dignita- 
tis, applicable  to  more  than  one  king.  The  proper  name  of  Cy- 
rus appears  to  have  been  Agradates.  In  case  the  matter  is  so 
understood,  nothing  more  particular  than  a  reference  to  a  Per- 
sian hing  is  contained  in  the  prediction.  In  respect  to  No.  3,  it 
cannot  be  said  with  truth,  that  Isaiah  and  his  contemporaries 
knew  nothing  of  Babylon,  and  felt  no  interest  to  know  any 
thing  about  it,  after  one  reads  Isa.  xxxix,  which  contains 
an  explicit  prediction,  that  the  descendants  of  Hezekiah 
should  be  carried  to  Babylon  and  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace 
there.  In  Micah  4:  9,  10,  is  a  prediction  of  the  same  tenor. 
Of  course  this  involves  the  destiny  of  the  nation,  (Micah  ex- 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  109 

press ly  applies  it  to  the  nation),  as  well  as  of  its  king.  Is 
not  this  "saying  something"  about  being  carried  into  exile? 
And  does  not  the  deliverance  which  follows  come  in  its  pro- 
per place  ? 

The  hortatory  strain,  objected  to  the  early  composition  in 
No.  4,  would  be  convincing,  if  we  could  show  that  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  could  not  anticipate  future  circumstances.  Most 
of  the  exhortations  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  constitute  'preach- 
ing applicable  to  any  or  all  periods,  in  those  ancient  times. 
The  appeal  to  ancient  prophecy  (No.  5),  does  not  necessarily 
involve  anything  more  ancient  than  what  Isaiah  himself  had 
uttered,  or  at  any  rate  Micah.  InMicah  4:  9,  10,  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity  is  very  plainly  and  expressly  predicted ; 
and  Micah  was  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah.  In  respect  to  No. 
6,  Jeremiah  no  more  appeals  to  Micah  than  he  does  to  Isaiah. 
The  argumentum  ex  silentio  has  little  force  indeed,  in  a  case  of 
this  nature. 

Finally,  I  deem  it  proper  to  add,  that  the  whole  dispute  in 
respect  to  the  Pseudo-Isaiah,  is  after  all  a  matter  of  less  im- 
portance, in  a  theological  point  of  view,  than  many  have 
deemed  it  to  be.  If  real  prophets  are  allowed  to  have  writ- 
ten the  alleged  adscititious  parts  of  the  book,  then  the  author- 
ity of  the  book  is  not  impinged,  at  any  rate  is  not  impugned. 
But  most  of  the  recent  critics  refuse  to  admit  the  existence 
of  such  men,  i.  e.  to  admit  them  as  being  properly  inspired 
men.  But  such  as  do  admit  of  the  real  prophetic  origin  of  the 
adscititious  part  (so  called)  may  ask  :  If  other  prophetic  works 
are  of  divine  authority,  why  are  not  these  also  ?  It  is  not  pre- 
tended, even  by  the  better  class  of  neological  critics,  that  these 
parts  of  Isaiah  were  written  post  eventum.  If  written  before, 
they  are  predictions.  Merely  as  a  theologian,  then,  I  should 
have  little  to  object  to  the  compound  nature  of  the  book  before 
us.  It  is  in  fact  of  little  or  no  theological  or  doctrinal  importance 
which  way  this  question  is  decided.  But  as  a  critic,  I  have 
serious  doubts  whether  recent  criticism  has  yet  made  its  way 
clear.  There  are  obstacles  in  its  path,  which  it  seems 
rather  to  leap  over  than  to  remove. 
10 


110  §4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

In  the  meantime,  it  must  be  confessed  that  there  are  some 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  other  and  the  older  critics.  The  gra- 
phic description  of  desolations  in  Edom  and  Judea,  which  is 
contained  in  chap.  Ixiii.  Ixiv,  seems  to  plead  strongly  in  fa- 
vour of  the  idea,  that  those  desolations  had  actually  taken 
place.  Above  all,  the  dilRcuUy  of  supposing  a  deep  and  pre- 
sent interest,  which  the  Isaiah  of  Ilezekiah's  reign  had,  or 
could  well  have,  in  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile 
when  he  has  not  anywhere  dwelt  at  length  upon  the  occur- 
rence of  being  carried  into  exile  ;  and  the  unparalleled  length 
and  particularity  of  the  descriptions  or  predictions  respecting 
this  return  ;  do  constitute  difficulties,  it  must  be  confessed,  in 
the  way  of  the  older  exegesis,  which  are  entitled  to  serious 
consideration.  Such,  it  must  be  conceded  also,  is  not  the  man- 
ner of  most  prophets,  in  regard  to  mere  civil  or  political 
events.  Things  of  jorese/z^  interest  and  oi  impending  danger, 
are  for  the  most  part  before  them,  and  are  the  subjects  of 
prophecy.  And  if  Isa.  xl — Ixvi.  can  be  viewed  as  coming 
from  the  pen  of  a  prophet  in  exile,  not  long  before  the  return 
from  it,  its  graphic  descriptions  and  its  many  developments  of 
deep  feeling  seem  to  be  more  naturally  and  easily  account- 
ed for.  Is  it  not  possible,  that  another  prophet,  who  also 
bore  the  name  of  Isaiah,  lived  and  wrote  at  this  period  ?  I 
must  confess  that  I  have  sometimes  suspected  this  to  be  the 
case.  Most  knots  which  we  must  now  cut,  would  easily  be 
untied  by  such  a  solution.  The  principal  objection  to  it  is, 
that  history  has  not  said  anything  of  such  a  man  ;  and  it  is 
difficult  even  to  suppose  that  the  name  of  such  a  WTiter,  at  so 
late  a  period,  could  be  covered  with  entire  darkness.  Did 
we  know  that  such  a  person  lived  and  wrote,  we  might  call 
him  Deutero- Isaiah,  but  surely  not  (as  recent  critics  do) 
Pseudo-Isaiah.  The  mistake  of  redactors  in  later  ages,  (in 
case  there  were  two  prophets  who  both  bore  the  name  of 
Isaiah),  in  arranging  and  combining  their  works  together,  and 
placing  them  under  one  category,  might  be  very  easily  ac- 
counted for,  in  such  a  case.  I  should  feel  some  inclination  to 
admit  this  theory,  as  the  most  easy  and  ready  solution  of  the 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  Ill 

difficulties,  if  it  could  only  be  rendered  probable,  that  such  a 
person  as  the  Dcutero-lsatah  could  have  lived,  and  written 
such  a  piece  of  composition  as  Isa,  xl — Ixvi,  and  yet  not  have 
been  conspicuous  in  Jewish  history.  The  lack  of  any  notice 
of  such  a  writer,  is  certainly  one  of  the  unaccountable  things. 

One  general  remark,  which  in  my  own  view  is  of  great  im- 
portance in  regard  to  the  whole  matter  before  us,  I  must 
make  before  I  quit  the  subject.  It  is  only  when  chaps,  xl — 
Ixvi.  are  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  great  Messianic  develop- 
ment— a  series  of  predictions  respecting  the  person,  the  work, 
and  the  kingdom  of  Christ — that  the  earnestness,  the  pro- 
tracted length,  the  fulness,  the  deep  feeling,  the  holy  enthu- 
siasm, the  glowing  metaphors  and  similies,  and  the  rich  and 
varied  exhibitions  of  peace  and  prosperity,  can  well  be  ac- 
counted for.  The  writer,  in  taking  such  a  stand-point,  uses 
the  exile  and  the  return  from  it  as  the  basis  of  his  compari- 
sons and  analogies.  It  was  a  rich  and  deeply  interesting 
source,  from  which  he  might  draw  them.  Any  other  solution 
of  the  whole  phenomena  is,  to  my  mind  at  least,  meagre  and 
unsatisfactory.  On  no  other  ground  can  I  account  for  it,  that 
Isaiah  so  long  beforehand  should  have  dwelt  on  an  exile  and 
a  return  from  it;  which  were  more  than  a  century  distant  from 
him  and  his  contemporaries. 

In  regard  to  the  book  of  Jonah,  it  purports  to  be  the  work 
V  of  Jonah  the  son  of  Amittai  (Jonah  1:  1)  ;  and  in  2  Kings  14: 
25,  we  have  an  account  of  Jonah  the  prophet,  of  Gath  He- 
pher,  a  town  in  the  district  of  Zebulun  (comp.  Josh.  19:  13). 
Of  this  latter  personage  it  appears,  that  he  lived  and  proph- 
esied during  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II,  king  of  Israel,  (825 — 
784  B.  C.)  ;  of  course,  at  the  time  when  the  Assyrian  power 
was  just  beginning  to  show  its  strength  in  western  Asia,  and 
might  be  dreaded  by  the  Israelites.  To  him  is  attributed,  by 
Hitzig  and  others,  the  prophecy  against  Moab  in  Isa.  xv.  xvi. 
And  inasmuch  as  Isaiah  himself  appears  to  assign  this  por- 
tion of  his  book  to  some  other  and  older  prophet  than  himself 
(Isa.  IG:  14),  no  very  urgent  objections  against  this  view  of 
the  subject  seem  to  press  upon  us  ;  although  I  do  not  deem  it 
necessary. 


112  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

As  to  the  prophecy  contained  in  the  book  entitled  Jonah, 
(but  Httle  indeed  of  the  book  is  prediction),  there  has  been 
an  endless  diversity  of  opinion  among  modern  and  recent  com- 
mentators in  regard  to  the  matter  and  manner  of  this  work. 
It  is  clear  from  Tobit  14:  8.  3  Mace.  6:  8,  and  from  Josephus' 
Antiq.  IX.  10.  2,  that  the  ancient  Jews  regarded  the  whole 
book  as  a  narrative  of  facts.  It  seems  moreover  very  much 
as  if  the  Saviour  had  given  his  sanction  to  it  as  such  ;  Matt. 
12:  40  seq.  16:  4.  Luke  11:  80.  Most  of  the  Christian  fa- 
thers have  done  the  same ;  and  the  great  body  of  the  older 
modern  commentators  have  inclined  to  follow  in  the  same 
path.  But  not  so  with  all.  In  recent  times,  the  Liberals, 
almost  to  a  man,  reject  the  simple  liistorical  exposition  of  the 
book  at  large  ;  and  not  a  few  even  of  those  who  are  more 
strict  in  sentiment,  have  felt  compelled  to  regard  it  as  an  al- 
legory  ov  parable. 

The  difficulties  alleged  to  be  connected  with  the  book,  are 
very  numerous.  First,  the  mission  itself  to  a  very  distant 
barbarian  city,  the  mistress  of  the  eastern  world,  buried  in 
luxury  and  idolatry,  and  looking  contemptuously  on  all  for- 
eigners— a  mission  totally  destitute  of  anything  analogous 
among  all  the  Hebrew  prophets — is  thought  to  be  a  serious 
obstacle  to  the  historical  exposition.  Then  comes  a  host  of 
other  difficulties.  The  sudden  and  unexpected  penitence  of 
the  Ninevites,  it  is  said,  is  incredible.  More  credible  would 
the  story  have  been,  if  it  had  represented  them  as  taking  Jo- 
nah for  a  raving  maniac.  The  book  of  Kings  (2  Kings  14: 
25  seq.),  which  gives  us  some  notices  of  Jonah,  takes  no  no- 
tice af  such  an  event.  Jonah,  a  prophet  too,  is  represented 
as  expecting  to  fly  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  by  going 
in  a  ship  to  Tarshish !  When  the  lot  falls  upon  Jonah,  as  the 
cause  of  the  tempest  which  threatened  the  safety  of  all  em- 
barked, with  the  same  indiffi3rence  which  before  had  made 
him  sleep  quietly  in  the  hold  of  the  ship  amidst  the  agitations 
of  the  storm,  he  proposes  to  be  cast  overboard.  He  is  swal- 
lowed by  a  whale ;  and  after  being  three  days  in  his  belly, 
he  is  vomited  up  upon  the  dry  land.     The  second  admoni- 


§  4.    LITERATrRE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  113 

tion  to  go  to  Nineveh  is  obeyed.  The  consequences  of  this 
mission  have  already  been  adverted  to.  Then  comes  the  re- 
pining indignation  of  the  prophet,  because  Nineveh  was  not 
actually  destroyed.  A  gourd  comes  up  in  a  single  night,  and 
grows  to  such  a  size  as  to  shelter  Jonah  from  the  burning 
heat,  to  which  he  was  exposed  in  his  watch-station.  But 
the  next  day,  a  worm  eats  it  at  the  root,  and  it  immediately 
withers.  Jonah  then  wishes  to  die,  rather  than  to  see  his 
prophecy  unfulfilled.  These  circumstances,  it  is  averred  with 
the  greatest  confidence,  are  all  of  them  either  very  improba- 
ble or  actually  impossible. 

So  they  must  have  been  regarded,  it  would  seem,  by  many 
interpreters  of  the  book ;  for  all  manner  of  devices  have  been 
resorted  to,  in  order  to  make  out  some  meaning  for  it  that 
would  comport  with  facts  which  the  interpreter  deemed  prob- 
able or  possible. 

The  principal  difficulty  is  with  the  matter  of  being  swal- 
lowed up  by  the  fish  or  whale.  A  whale,  it  is  said,  has  not 
a  gullet  large  enough  to  receive  a  man.  Then,  it  is  asked, 
how  could  Jonah  live  in  his  interior  ?  How  could  such  a 
monster  approach  the  land  near  enough  to  throw  him  upon 
it  ?  These  and  the  like  questions  have  been  discussed,  until 
it  would  seem  that  not  much  more  remains  to  be  said,  or  even 
invented. 

Of  the  Rabbinical  conceits  about  Jonah,  I  need  say  no 
more  than  to  mention,  that  one  of  them  is,  that  the  whale 
swam  round  the  whole  continent  of  Africa  in  the  three  days 
during  which  Jonah  was  within  him  ;  that  he  came  back  by 
the  way  of  the  Red  Sea;  and  that  he  went  through  the  sub- 
terranean passage  from  that  sea  to  the  Mediterranean,  and 
thus  brought  Jonah  safe  to  his  home  again.  According  to 
some  of  the  Rabbles,  Jonah  had  a  not  uncomfortable  berth 
for  such  a  long  and  rapid  voyage  ;  and,  looking  through  the 
whale's  eyes,  he  saw  a  great  many  wonders  of  the  deep.  Be- 
sides this,  he  performed  many  devotional  exercises.  Even 
Josephus  (Antiq.  IX.  10.  2)  makes  the  whale  to  throw  up  the 
prophet  upon  the  shores  of  the  Euxine,     Others  have  inven- 

10* 


114  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

ted  a  more  facile  solution  of  the  whole  difficulty.     The  whale 
(yn,  Vit  Jish)  is  turned  into  a  boat  with  a  ivhcile  painted  on  its 
stern  or  boiu  ;  or  it  may  be  a  boat  of  the  whalers,  as  we  speak 
of  a  luhale  boat.     Even  Godfrey  Less  has  broached  such  an 
exegesis  ;  Verm.  Schrift.  }).  161.    So  Jonah,  after  three  days 
tossing,  is  represented  as  being  driven  to  the  land,  and  thrown 
upon  it  by  the  waves.     But  the  difficulty  here  is,  that  the 
account  of  Jonah  (1:  17)  states,  that  the   Lord  had  prepared 
bili^  ^'^ ,  a  great  JisJi,  to  swallow  up  the  prophet ;  where  the 
epithet  great  has  of  course  a  very  appropriate  meaning.     But 
how  is  it  with  a  g?^eat  boat  ?  Then  again,  the  vomiting  (!J<i>^!)) 
upon  the  land — appropriate  enough  to  the  great  fish,  but  how 
the  boat  vomited  out  Jonah,  looks  rather  problematical.     Oth- 
ers, therefore,  not  liking  these  explanations  of  the  narration, 
say,  that  Jonah  when  thrown  overboard  found  a  dead  fish,  on 
which  he  got  a  station,  and  was  thrown,  at  last,  upon  the  land 
unharmed.     But  still,  the  sivallowing  up  of  Jonah,  and  the 
vomiting  of  him  out,  are  lost  sight  of  even  in  this  exegesis. 
To  remedy  this,  ingenuity  has  contrived  to  make  Jonah  cut 
a  hole  in  the  fish,  so  that  he  could  lodge  in  his  interior  ;  and 
from  this  he  came  out,  when  cast  upon  the  land.     But  even 
here,  Jonah  seems  rather  to  manage  the  fish,  than  to  be  man- 
aged by  him.     The  view  attributed  to  the  famous  Von  der 
Hardt,  who  wrote  several  volumes  upon  Jonah,  viz.,  that  Jo- 
nah put  np  a  tavern  which  had  the  sign  of  a  whale,  is  closely 
allied  to  this. 

Futile,  not  to  sa}^  ridiculous,  attempts  are  all  these  and  the 
like,  to  do  away  the  force  of  a  narration,  which  plainly  sa- 
vours of  the  miraculous.  Not  but  that  the  whole  matter,  in 
respect  to  the^s^,  might  be  shown  to  be  a  natural  possibility. 
The  Oanis  Carcharias,  common  in  the  Mediterranean,  can 
surely  swallow  a  man,  for  it  has  done  so  ;  and  so  can  some 
other  fishes.  That  a  man  should  preserve  life  for  a  while  in 
the  stomach  of  a  fish,  under  certain  circumstances,  is  no  im- 
possibility. Living  reptiles  often  spend  years  in  the  human 
stomach ;  some  of  them,  moreover,  are  such  as  need  air  for 
respiration,  (as  indeed  what  living  and  breathing  creature  does 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  115 

not  ?)  As  to  throwing  up  Jonah  upon  the  land,  there  are  places 
enough  of  deep  water  up  to  the  very  edge  of  the  sea-shore, 
where  this  might  be  done  by  a  large  fish.  The  objection  that 
the  stomach  of  the  fish  must  have  dissolved  and  digested  Jonah, 
is  of  no  weight ;  for  every  one  acquainted  with  physiology 
knows,  that  living  flesh  does  not  digest  in  the  least  in  the 
stomach.  The  gastric  juice  has  no  power  over  it.  And  last 
but  not  least — the  God  who  meant  to  punish,  but  not  to  de- 
stroy, Jonah,  could  arrange  all  these  circumstances,  and  also 
preserve  his  life,  in  such  a  way  as  is  stated  in  the  narration. 
The  same  God  could  cause  the  fish  to  throw  him  out  of  his 
stomach  ;  the  Bible  aflarms  that  he  did  ;  Jon.  2:  10. 

So  would  I  say,  moreover,  of  the  gourd,  and  its  withering, 
although  the  latter  circumstance  is  pressed  by  no  special  dif- 
ficulty. Its  growth,  however,  must  be  supernatural.  The 
panic,  the  fast,  and  the  penitence  of  the  Ninevites,  are  doubt- 
less all  circumstances  extraordinary  and  without  a  parallel  in 
sacred  history.  Yet  surely  they  cannot  be  deemed  impossi- 
bilities. The  mission  of  Jonah  to  a  distant  heathen  country, 
in  his  day  scarcely  known  among  the  Jews,  and  not  yet  hav- 
ing made  any  incursion  upon  Palestine,  is  undoubtedly  one 
of  the  most  serious  difficulties  that  the  book  presents.  The 
mission  of  a  man  who  had  such  a  temper  as  Jonah,  to  execute 
a  commission  so  grave,  stands  next  to  this.  And  then — what 
was  the  object  ?  "What  was  achieved  ?  What  had  the  Jews 
to  do,  at  that  time,  with  the  Ninevites  ?  It  is  easy  to  ask 
many  questions  of  this  kind ;  but  it  is  not  so  easy  to  answer 
them  satisfactorily.  The  book  itself  presents  us  with  no  key 
to  unlock  these  mysteries. 

I  cannot  much  wonder,  therefore,  that  allegory  ov  parable 
has  been  resorted  to  by  so  many  interpreters  (and  of  different 
sentiments  too  in  theology),  in  order  to  explain  the  book. 
Jonah,  they  say,-  designed  to  teach  the  Hebrew  nation  to  feel 
more  liberally  towards  the  heathen ;  to  show  them  that  even 
the  latter  were  more  susceptible  of  moral  impression  than  har- 
dened Jews  ;  and  to  impress  them  with  the  idea  that  God 
was  the  common  Father  of  all  men — of  the  Gentiles  as  well 


116  §  4.    LITERATtTRE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

as  of  the  Jews.     He  wrote  this  allegory,  as  they  aver,  in  order 
to  accomplish  this  end ;  just  as  the  Saviour  uttered  the  para- 
ble of  the  good  Samaritan,  and  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus, 
or  of  the  sower,  in  order  to  illustrate  and  confirm  certain  mo- 
ral truths.    In  itself  this  exhibits  nothing  impossible  or  even 
improbable.    Yet  the  want  of  all  intimations  of  this  nature  in 
the  book  itself,  is  somewhat  of  an  objection  against  this  mode  of 
exegesis ;  although  it  has  been  adopted,  for  substance,  by  such 
men  as  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Herder,  Eichhorn,  Staiidlin,  Meyer, 
Mueller,  Niemeyer,  and  others.  In  the  Gospels,  and  generally 
in  the  prophets,  the  context  gives  us  a  key  to  the  allegory  or  the 
pai^ble.  I  am  constrained  also  to  ask :  Can  what  the  Saviour 
says  about  Jonah  and  the  Ninevites,  be  reconciled  with  the 
idea  that  the  book  is  only  an  allegory  ?     The  first  spontane- 
ous prompting  of  the  mind  seems  to  be  an  answer  in  the  neg- 
ative.    Yet  it  is  asked :  Do  we  not  every  day  refer  to  the 
Good  Samaritan,  and  to  the  Prodigal   Son,  in  the  same  waj 
as  if  they  were  real  historical  personages  ?     And  in  fact  one 
cannot  deny  this  ;  but  still  there  is  this  difference  between  the 
two  cases,  viz.,  that  in  the  Gospels  the  nature  of  the  allegory 
is  palpable.     However,  at  all  events,  this  method  of  interpre- 
tation is  much  preferable  to  one  lately  come  in  vogue,  through 
Goldhorn,  Gesenius,  De  AYette,   and  Knobel,  viz.  that  the 
book  has  only  a  few  facts  at  the  basis,  simple  and  credible  ; 
while  all  the  rest  is  a  mythic  romance — a  narrative  made  out 
of  floating  popular  stories.     Jonah,  they  say,  was  a  prophet. 
He  uttered  oracular  threats  against  Nineveh.     He  made  a 
voyage   to   sea ;    was   shipwrecked ;    narrowly  escaped  the 
sharks ;  returned  to  his  prophetic  duty ;  but  was  indignant 
that  his  first  predictions  had  not  been  fulfilled,  and  therefore 
wished  for  death,  through  fear  of  disgrace.     So  much  they 
allow  to  be  fact.     Then  as  to  the  mythic  part,  it  comes,  as 
they  think,  from  the  story  among  the  Greeks,  that  Hercules, 
at  Sigeum,  rescued  Hesione,  the  daughter  of  Laomedon  king 
of  Troy,  from  the  jaws  of  the  sea-monster  to  which  she  was 
devoted.     In  order  to  do  this,  he  sprang   himself  into   the 
monster's  jaws,  was  swallowed  down,  and  there  he  fought 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OP  THE  HEBREWS.  117 

three  days  and  nights  in  his  belly,  destroyed  him,  and  came 
out  alive  with  only  the  loss  of  his  hair,  which  had  been  burned 
up  by  the  heat  within ;  Diod.  Sic.  VI.  42.  Ovid  Met.  XI. 
211  seq.  Tzetzes  ad  Lycoph.  Cassand.  33.  This  myth,  as  some 
of  the  recent  critics  suppose,  was  combined  with  another,  the 
scene  of  which  is  at  the  shore  of  Joppa.  There  Perseus 
rescued  from  a  sea-monster  Andromeda,  the  daughter  of  king 
Cepheus  ;  and  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  V.  14)  and  Jerome  (Comm. 
in  Jon.  I.  3)  tell  us,  that  the  people  of  that  place  were  accus- 
tomed to  show  to  strangers  the  rock  where  Andromeda  was 
chained,  and  the  huge  bones  of  the  sea-monster ;  [whales'  bones 
no  doubt].  Both  of  these  fables  are  united,  and  forthwith 
out  comes  the  myth  of  Jonah.  So  even  Rosenmueller.  To 
this  I  have  only  to  say : 

"  Humano  capiti  cervicem  pictor  equinam 
Jungere  si  velit,  et  varias  inducere  plumas 
Undique  collatis  niembris ;  ut  turpiter  atrum 
Desinat  in  piscem  mulier  formosa  superne  ; 
Spectatum  admissi,  risum  teneatis  amici  ?"* 

What  others  may  do,  who  have  more  power  over  their 
risihles  than  I,  is  not  for  me  to  say.  But  for  myself,  I  cannot 
do  otherwise  than  Horace  supposes  his  friends  would  do, 
when  looking  at  the  strange  production  of  the  painter  whom 
he  describes.  Winer,  (not  restrained  most  surely  by  any 
orthodox  notions  from  admitting  neological  exegesis),  says,  in 
respect  to  this  mythical  explanation :  "  It  always  must  appear 
very  improbable,  that  a  Hebrew  writer  would  have  found  any 
occasion  of  working  over  the  materials  of  a  Philistine  Myth ;" 
Bib.  Lex.  art.  Jonas.  It  is  even  worse  than  Horace's  supposed 
picture  ;  and,  so  we  may  emphatically  ask  :  Risum  teneatis, 
amici  ?  How  it  is  possible  thus  to  overlook  the  very  genius 
of  the  Hebrews,  and  the  nature  and  design  of  the  sacred  books, 

*  In  English  thus  :  '"  If  a  painter  should  undertake  to  join  a  horse's 
neck  to  a  human  head,  and  to  cover  with  variegated  feathers  the  limbs 
collected  from  all  quarters  ;  so  that  a  woman  beautiful  in  the  upper  part 
should  disgustingly  end  in  a  black  fish  :  if  admitted  to  such  a  sight,  my 
fi-icnds,  could  you  keen  yourselves  from  laughing  7"  Ai's  Poet.  1-^5. 


118  §  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

and  to  suppose  that  the  book  of  Jonah  was  written  with  such 
views,  and  admitted  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  canon — I  leave 
for  those  to  explain,  who  have  done  the  deed  of  making  up 
the  monstrous  compound.  I  wash  my  hands  of  such  high 
treason  against  the  fundamental  laws  of  sacred  criticism. 

Doubtless  the  question  will  be  put  by  the  reader :  And 
what  then,  after  such  remarks  on  the  exegesis  of  others — what 
do  you  yourself  regard  as  the  object  of  the  book  of  Jonah  ? 
"What  estimate  do  you  put  on  the  narration  ?  So  far  as  I  am 
able,  I  am  willing  to  give  an  answer  ;  but  it  must  be  brief, 
after  dwelling  so  long  upon  this  book. 

When  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  said  to  Christ :  "  Master, 
we  would  see  a  sign  from  thee,  he  told  them  that  "  the  men 
of  Nineveh  should  risein  judgment  with  that  generation,  and 
condemn  it,  because  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah," 
and  then  immediately  added  that  a  "  greater  than  Jonah"  was 
before  them;  Matt.  12:  41.  Luke  11:  32.  Did  he  not  mean 
now  to  compare  one  historical  person  and  transaction  with 
another  ?  If  the  Ninevites  had  been  known  and  regarded 
only  as  an  imaginary  people — the  offspring  of  allegory  or  ro- 
mance— there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  the  case.  The  com- 
parison might  then  be  placed  on  the  same  ground,  on  which 
we  now  place  the  conduct  and  person  of  any  one  actually 
living,  when  we  compare  him  and  his  demeanor  with  the  prod- 
igal son,  or  with  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  But  the  Ninevites 
are  surely  historical  and  veritable  personages  ;  as  much  so  as 
the  queen  of  the  South,  who  is  joined  with  them  in  Matt.  12:  42 ; 
and  the  force  of  the  Saviour's  appeal  is  greatly  strengthened 
by  the  supposition  that  they  are  real  personages.  Not  a 
word  from  .Jesus  to  make  us  suspect  that  he  regarded  the  mat- 
ter of  the  Ninevites  in  any  other  light  than  that  of  a  real  his- 
torical fact.  Again,  when  Jesus  says  to  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees,  who  were  seeking  a  sign  from  heaven  and  tempt- 
ing him,  that  "no  sign  should  be  given  them  but  the  sign  of 
the  prophet  Jonah,"  (Matt.  12:  39,  40.  16:  4),  does  he  not 
compare  the  abode  of  Jonah  for  three  days  in  the  belly  of  the 
fish,  with  his  own  abode  in  the  grave  during  the  same  period  ? 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  llO 

Matt.  12:  40.  In  other  words :  Does  lie  not  compare  one 
historical  fact  with  another  ?  It  seems  so.  I  know  not  how 
to  throw  off  the  impression  which  these  passages  make  upon 
my  mind.  When  Paul  tells  us,  in  Gal.  4:  24,  that  the  nar- 
rative in  Genesis  concerning  the  son  of  Hagar  and  also  of 
Sarah  is  allegorized,  we  know  where  we  are  and  what  to  ex- 
pect. But  is  there  anything  in  the  passages  just  cited  in  re- 
spect to  Jonah,  which  is  adapted  to  make  an  impression  that 
the  story  of  Jonah  and  of  the  Ninevites  is  an  allegory?  If 
there  be,  it  has  escaped  my  notice. 

The  authority  of  Christ,  then,  seems  to  bind  me  to  admit 
the  facts  as  they  are  stated  in  the  narrative  of  Jonah.  They 
are  indeed  strange  facts  apparently  ;  but  not  therefore  untrue. 
They  plainly  are  not  impossibilities  ;  although  I  acknowledge, 
very  readily,  that  they  are  improbabilities,  when  compared 
with  the  common  course  of  things.  But  are  not  all  miracles 
of  this  character  ?  Or,  putting  aside  (as  I  would)  absolute 
miracles  in  regard  to  the  things  recognized  by  Christ  with  re- 
spect to  Jonah,  do  they  not  border  upon  the  marvellous  ? 
Certainly  they  do  ;  but  is  all  that  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment contains,  which  is  of  the  like  character,  to  be  therefore 
rejected?  Neologists  say :  Yes.  But  the  behever  in  divine 
revelation  has  no  need  to  join  in  this  answer.  He  may  rank 
the  occurrences  in  the  book  of  Jonah  with  other  occurrences 
related  in  the  Scriptures,  which  are  of  a  similar,  i.  e.  of  a  mi- 
raculous, character. 

So  much  {ov  facts.  Now  for  the  object  of  the  book.  This 
is  indeed  a  problem  of  difficult  solution.  What  can  it  be, 
unless  it  is  to  inculcate  on  the  narrow-minded  and  bigoted 
Jews,  (there  were  many  such),  the  great  truth,  that  God  re- 
gards the  humble  and  penitent  everywhere  with  favor ;  and 
that  even  the  haughty,  cruel,  idolatrous  and  domineering 
heathen,  in  case  they  repent  and  humble  themselves,  become 
the  subjects  of  his  compassion  and  clemency,  and  are  more 
acceptable  than  the  haughty  Jew,  claiming  descent  from 
Abraham,  but  still  the  devoted  slave  of  ritual  observances 
and  of  his  own  evil  passions  ? 


120  §  4.    LITER AttJRE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

So  much  lies  on  the  face  of  the  book.  There  is  no  strange 
doctrine  in  it,  therefore,  but  a  plain  and  simple  truth  is  il- 
lustrated and  impressively  taught  by  it.  No  difficulty,  indeed, 
of  a  doctrinal  nature  attends  the  work.  Whatever  difficulty 
there  is,  it  lies  in  the  tenor  of  the  narration. 

The  only  question  over  which  darkness  seems  to  a  be- 
liever in  miracles  to  hover,  is,  how  Jonah  alone,  of  all  the 
Hebrew  prophets,  should  be  a  missionary  to  the  heathen  ? 
And,  (as  connected  with  this),  why  was  he  sent,  in  the  reign 
of  Jeroboam  II,  to  perform  such  a  service  ?  My  ignorance 
as  to  those  things  which  would  make  out  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  these  questions,  can  prove  nothing  against  the  facts  them- 
selves. The  time  when  he  was  sent,  is  indeed  of  no  great 
importance. — These  facts,  moreover,  are  in  themselves  so 
far  from  being  impossibilities,  that,  if  admitted,  they  actually 
help  to  commend  the  prophetic  dispensation  to  our  feelings. 
We  are  heartily  glad,  to  see  in  what  manner  the  divine  Being 
recognizes  the  relation  of  all  parts  of  our  race  to  himself,  and 
how  willing  he  is  to  pardon  the  penitent.  The  unusual  oc- 
currence of  such  an  event  as  the  mission  of  Jonah,  and  the 
apparent  strangeness  of  the  whole  matter,  are  about  the  only 
things,  in  the  end,  that  afford  any  serious  doubts  or  difficul- 
ties to  the  believing  mind.  But  I  do  not  think  these  to  be 
satisfactory  or  valid  reasons  for  rejecting  the  book,  or  for 
turning  it  into  an  allegory  or  an  ethnico-Judaic  Myth. 

But  I  must  not  pursue  any  further  the  examination  of  these 
particular  works.  I  return  to  our  Chaldean  period  of  pro- 
phecy, which  extends  down  to  the  end  of  the  exile ;  I  have 
only  to  add  here,  in  regard  to  the  prophetic  order,  that  we 
have  no  history  of  any  other  than  those  prophets  before 
mentioned.  If  there  were  men  capable  of  writing  such  com- 
positions as  the  so-called  Pseudo-Isaiah,  then  why,  as  has  al- 
ready been  suggested,  is  no  mention  made  of  them,  no  hint 
given  respecting  them  ?  Could  men  capable  of  writing  in 
that  manner,  have  lived  in  entire  obscurity,  while  Zephaniah, 
Obadiah,  Haggai,  and  Malachi,  not  far  from  the  same  period, 
are  all  distinctly  recognized  and  well  known  ?     At  least  this 


§  4.    LITERATDRE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  121 

is  something,  which  those,  who  feel  so  free  on  all  occasions 
to  doubt,  may  allow  us  the  privilege  of  doubting,  until  the 
matter  is  better  cleared  up. 

In  addition  to  the  anonymous  prophets  already  adverted  to^ 
(who  are  brought  into  being  by  recent  criticism),  another 
prophet,  it  seems,  must  be  reckoned.  Jer.  1.  li.  is  thought  by 
some  critics  of  name,  to  have  been  composed  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  exile,  and  therefore  not  by  Jeremiah  the  well-known 
prophet,  who  most  probably  must  have  been  dead  before  that 
time.  But  the  arguments  drawn  from  the  diction,  in  this 
case,  surely  make  against  this,  if  the  whole  of  the  resem- 
blances to  Jeremiah  are  set  over  against  the  alleged  discrepan- 
cies ;  and  there  is  no  historical  or  critical  necessity  of  sup- 
posing the  chapters  in  question  to  be  an  interpolation. 

If  we  turn  now  from  this  brief  survey  of  the  prophets  who 
lived  and  acted  during  the  Chaldean  period,  to  a  moment's 
consideration  of  their  characteristics  of  style,  we  shall  be  struck 
with  the  greatly  altered  tone  of  their  compositions.  The 
brevity,  simplicity,  majesty,  and  beauty  of  the  golden  age  have 
in  a  large  measure  passed  by.  The  dialect,  though  still  He- 
hrew  in  all  its  substantial  elements,  differs  much  from  that  of 
Isaiah,  Joel,  and  Nahum.  Allegory,  figure,  symbol,  and  para- 
ble, are  frequent  almost  everywhere  ;  and  in  fact  they  make 
up  almost  the  whole  of  Ezekieh  Jeremiah  has  a  great  deal 
of  historic  matter,  and  is  less  inclined  than  his  contemporary 
to  allegory  and  symbol ;  but  still  the  tenor  of  his  style  differs 
so  exceedingly  from  that  of  the  previous  writers  already  named, 
that  one  can  hardly  persuade  himself,  that  more  time  than  is 
usually  allowed  did  not  elapse  between  the  Assyrian  and  the 
Chaldean  periods  of  prophetic  composition.  As  to  pathos, 
tenderness,  deep  felt  grief  on  account  of  the  desolations  of  Ju- 
dea,  and  still  more  on  account  of  its  wickedness,  there  is  no- 
thing in  the  writers  of  any  age  which  exceeds  some  parts  of 
Jeremiah. 

Another  circumstance  should  be  noted.  Instead  of  em- 
ploying 'poetry  as  the  vehicle  of  instruction,  which  for  the  most 
part  the  prophets  of  the  golden  age  did,  the  compositions  dur- 

11 


122  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

ing  the  period  in  question  were  generally  in  j^rose  ;  but  not 
unfVequently  in  a  kind  of  measured  prose.  Habakkuk  is  in- 
deed an  exception  to  this,  as  well  as  to  the  style  in  general  of 
his  times.  How  now  shall  we  class  Isa.  xl — Ixvi.  with  the 
poetry  of  this  Chaldean  period,  when  the  former  consists  of 
some  of  the  most  symmetrical  poetry  to  be  found  in  all  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures?  If  the  so-called  Pseudo-Isaiah  be  indeed 
of  later  composition,  it  stands  out  as  a  singular  phenomenon 
amidst  the  other  prophetic  remains  of  that  age.  A  writer  of 
that  day,  on  a  theme  so  interesting  as  that  which  is  presented 
in  Isa.  xl — Ixvi,  who  could  with  such  wonderful  success  trans- 
port himself  into  the  midst  of  the  golden  age  and  adopt  its 
general  manner,  imagery,  and  diction,  one  would  be  prone  to 
think  must  have  had  some  memorial  left  of  him. 

Knobel  alleges,  that  the  prophets  of  the  Chaldean  period 
exhibit  more  attachment  to  the  ritual  Law,  than  those  of  the 
preceding  era.  What  little  foundation  there  is  for  this  remark, 
seems  to  me  to  rest  merely  on  the  fact,  that  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  were  both  priests  as  well  as  prophets.  How  natural 
then  that  they  should  look  somewhat  more  to  the  violated 
ritual,  as  well  as  to  the  moral  law ! 

We  have  no  history  of  the  Jews  during  their  exile,  except- 
ing the  hints  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  respecting  them.  But 
these  do  not  disclose  to  us  any  particulars  respecting  any  true 
prophets  of  the  Lord,  if  such  there  were  among  them.  In 
Jer.  xxix.  we  have  an  account  of  several/a/se  prophets  among 
the  exiles,  by  the  name  of  Ahab,  Zedekiah,  and  Shemaiah. 
The  two  former  were  roasted  by  the  king  of  Babylon  in  the 
fire  (Jer.  29:  22),  probably  because  they  excited  their  coun- 
trymen to  uneasiness  in  their  exile,  by  false  pi'omises  made  to 
them.  Jeremiah  strongly  denounces  these  false  prophets  ;• 
and  in  a  similar  manner  does  Ezekiel  denounce  men  of  the 
same  class,  who  were  flattering  the  exiles  with  deceitful  pro- 
mises ;  Ezek.  13:  1 — IG.  In  like  manner  the  false  shephei'ds 
of  Israel,  (probably  false  prophets,  see  on  p.  91  above),  are 
severely  rebuked  in  Ezek.  xxxiv.  May  we  not,  then,  in  the 
absence  of  direct  testimony,  assume  as  altogether  probable 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  123 

the  continued  existence  of  true  prophets  among  the  Hebrews 
in  their  exile  ?  False  coin  does  not  usually  make  its  appear- 
ance where  there  is  no  true  coin.  The  analogy  of  former  and 
of  subsequent  periods  would  seem  to  plead  in  favour  of  the 
position,  that  among  the  exiles  in  Babylon  were  more  or  less 
of  true  prophetical  teachers.  The  people  were  humbled  by 
this  exile.  They  grew  better  under  their  chastisements. 
Many  of  them  sighed  for  a  return  to  Palestine,  and  a  renewal 
of  their  I'eligious  state  and  privileges.  And  when  they  did 
return  from  exile,  in  consequence  of  the  proclamation  by  Cy- 
rus who  gave  them  liberty,  they  had  such  men  for  leaders 
as  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua  the  high-priest ;  also  the  prophets 
Zechariah  and  Haggai ;  Ezra  5:  1.  These,  and  in  the  sequel 
Malachi,  contributed  important  aid  in  re-establishing  the  Jew- 
ish commonwealth  and  worship.  We  can  hardly  suppose, 
therefore,  that  the  Jews  were  at  any  time  during  their  exile 
entirely  destitute  of  true  prophets,  although  we  have  no  ex- 
plicit account  of  such  persons  among  them. 

In  536  B.  C.  Cyrus  attained  to  the  sole  regency  of  the 
Medo-Persiau  empire,  and  during  the  same  year  he  published 
his  edict,  permitting  and  even  exhorting  the  Jews  to  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  and  rebuild  the  temple.  About  70,000  persons  re- 
turned to  Palestine  (Ez.  2:  66.  Neli.  7:  66seq.),  the  same 
year,  in  consequence  of  this  edict,  having  Zerubbabel  a  de- 
scendant of  David  as  their  civil  head,  and  Jeshua  as  their 
liigh  priest.  Great  trouble  and  hindrance  were  soon  given  to 
the  Jews,  by  their  heathen  and  envious  neighbours  ;  so  that 
the  re-building  of  the  temple  and  city  was  often  interrupted 
and  long  delayed.  For  the  following  seventy-five  years  we 
have  no  particular  account  of  their  religious  state,  and  only  a 
few  noti<ies  of  their  civil  condition.  Who  were  their  pro- 
phets, if  prophets  they  had,  excepting  Haggai  and  Zechariah 
(Ezra  5:  1),  we  know  not.  After  Darius  Hystaspis  had 
come  to  the  throne  of  Persia  (521  B.  C-),  i.  e.  some  fifteen 
or  more  years  after  the  edict  of  Cyrus,  those  prophets  con- 
tributed much  in  stirring  up  the  Jews  to  go  on  with  their 
temple-building.     In  the  sixth  year  of  Darius,  (516  B.  C), 


124  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

was  this  great  undertaking  finished.  From  that  time  down  to 
the  seventh  year  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longiraanus 
(457  B.  C. — or  as  some  maintain,  460),  we  have  no  historic 
notices  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  of  the  state  of  the  nation.  In 
the  year  just  named,  Ezra,  "a  ready  scribe  in  the  Law  of 
Moses,  which  the  Lord  God  had  given,"  came  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem from  Babylon,  by  leave  of  the  Persian  king,  and  brought 
with  him  between  two  and  three  thousand  of  the  exiles ;  Ez- 
ra vii.  viii.  Here  Ezra  employed  himself  for  several  years  in 
the  accomplishment  of  a  reformation  both  in  worship  and  in 
morals  ;  for  both  of  these  had  greatly  degenerated  after  the 
death  of  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua.  In  about  ten  years,  Nehe- 
miah,  the  cup-bearer  of  Artaxerxes,  by  leave  of  this  king 
paid  a  visit  to  Palestine,  and  found  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  in 
a  ruinous  state.  These  he  repaired,  and  being  made  gov- 
ernor (Tirshatha)  of  the  place,  he  resided  there  some  twelve 
years  (Neh.  6:  14),  and  not  only  did  he  fortify  the  city,  but 
contributed  greatly  to  bring  everything  both  civil  and  religious 
into  a  state  of  order  and  regularity.  In  this  he  was  much  as- 
sisted by  Ezra  (Neh.  viii.),  who  took  the  lead  in  all  religious 
matters.  After  twelve  years  he  returned  to  Persia,  accord- 
ing to  agreement,  but  within  a  few  days  he  obtained  leave  to 
go  back  to  Palestine ;  Neh.  13:  6.  There  he  spent  the  rest 
of  his  life.  But  of  his  further  actions,  excepting  for  a  short 
period  after  his  return,  we  have  no  account,  and  the  history 
of  the  Jews  after  the  Babylonish  exile,  ends  with  the  doings 
of  Nehemiah,  i.  e.  about  434  B.  C. 

It  is  said  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  6:  7),  that  he  had  appointed 
■prophets  to  preach  in  Jerusalem.  Who  these  were,  is  not  said, 
in  the  passage  to  which  reference  has  been  made.  But  that 
Malachi  was  among  them,  scarcely  admits  of  a  doubt.  That 
he  was  later  than  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  and  lived  after  the 
building  of  the  temple  was  completed,  is  quite  manifest  to  any 
one  who  will  take  pains  to  consult  and  compare  the  following 
passages;  viz.  as  to  completion  of  the  temple,  Mai.  1:  10.  3: 
1,  10 ;  as  to  duties  neglected  by  priests  and  Levites,  comp. 
Mai.  1:  G.  2:  1,  8,  9  with  Neh.  13:  10,  11,  28—30 ;   as  to  the 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  125 

people's  withholding  gifts  for  the  temple,  comp.  Mai.  3:  8 — 10 
with  Neh.  13:  10,  12,  41 ;  as  to  marriage  with  foreigners, 
comp.  Mai.  2:  10 — 16  with  Neh.  13:  23  seq. ;  as  to  oppression 
of  the  poor,  comp.  Mai.  S.  5  with  Xeh.  v.  It  Avould  seem 
then,  that  Malachi  flourished  about  440  B.  C.  AYhen  he  died, 
we  know  n^t ;  but  it  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  that  he  closed 
the  series  of  that  very  extraordinary  class  of  men,  the  He- 
brew propheta. 

We  have,  then,  after  th'C  return  from  exile,  only  three 
prophets  whose  names  and  works  are  known  to  us.  These 
are  Zechariah,  Haggai,  and  Malachi.  But  we  find  kindred 
spirits  in  Zerubbabel,  Jeshua,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  ;  and  spe- 
cially does  it  seem  to  me  that  Ezra  had  much  to  do  with  the 
republication,  arrangement,  and  completion  of  the  Jewish 
Canon.     But  of  this,  more  in  the  sequeL 

I  have  as  yet  made  no  mention  of  Daniel,  because  he  was 
not  a  prophet  among  the  people  of  Palestine,  although  born 
in  that  land.  He  was  very  young  at  the  time  whc  i  Nebu- 
chadnezzar came  up  against  Jerusalem  (606  B.  C  ^,  and  was 
carried  away  to  Babylon  as  a  hostage,  by  the  king ;  Dan.  1: 
1 — 6.  Most  probably  he  was  the  son  of  a  nobleman,  or  per- 
haps of  the  royal  family.  We  have  an  account  of  him  in  the 
third  year  of  Cyrus  (534  B.  C),  so  that  he  must  have  lived 
to  the  age  of  eighty  or  ninety  years  ;  Dan.  10:  1.  He  might 
be  placed  among  the  prophets  of  the  third  or  Chaldean  pe- 
riod ;  for  some  of  his  visions  were  before  the  close  of  the 
Babylonish  monarchy  ;  yet  some  of  them,  also,  were  after  the 
edict  of  liberation  to  the  Jews  was  issued  by  Cyrus.  Recent 
criticism  has  asci'ibed  his  book  to  some  writer  in  the  time  of 
the  Maccabees ;  and  some  have  even  denied,  that  any  such 
distinguished  person  as  Daniel  lived  at  the  Babylonish  court 
and  held  an  office  there.  The  writer  of  the  book,  it  is  aver- 
red, has  merely  feigned  such  a  character,  in  order  that  he 
might  compose  a  work  suited  to  console  the  Jews  who  were 
suffering  under  the  persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  as 
the  more  ancient  Jews  had  done  under  their  Babylonish  op- 
•       11* 


126  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

pressors.     Of  course,  the  book  of  Daniel  is  ranked,  by  critics 
of  this  class,  as  last  of  all  in  the  prophetic  Scriptures. 

It  would  be  inconsistent  with  my  present  object,  to  turn 
aside  here,  in  order  to  vindicate  the  genuineness  of  the  book 
of  Daniel.     It  has  found  an  able   advocate  in  the  work  of 
Hengstenberg  on    its    authenticity,  Authentie    des   Daniel, 
1831 ;  and  also  in  Havernick's  recent  Einleit.  ins  Alt.  Testa- 
ment.    Nearly  all  the  arguments  employed  to  disprove  its 
genuineness,  have  their  basis  more  or  less  directly  in  the  as- 
sumption, that  miraculous  events  are   impossibilities.      Of 
course,  all  the  extraordinary  occurrences  related  in  the  book 
of  Daniel,  and  all  the  graphic  predictions  of  events,  are,  un- 
der the  guidance  of  this  assumption,  stricken  from  the  list  of 
probabilities,  and  even  of  possibilities.     All  that  is  said  of  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes  and  other  Syrian  and  Grecian  kings,  is 
prophetia  post  eventum,  i.  e.  real  narration  of  events  past, 
rather  than  prediction  of  events  to  come.    Beyond  the  objec- 
tions which  are  founded  entirely  on  these  assumptions,  there 
is  little,   as  it  seems  to  me,  to  convince  an  enlightened  and 
well-balanced  critical  reader,  that  the  book  is  supposititious. 
After  examining  the  subject  with  much  attention,  I  must  con- 
fess myself  to  be  far  from  believing  that  the  objections  to  the 
authenticity  of  the  book  can  maintain  their  stand,  before  the 
bar  of  enlightened  and  truly  liberal  criticism. 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  it  matters  but  little  to  the  main  ob- 
ject of  my  present  work.  All  agree,  that  the  book  of  Daniel 
was  written  a  considerable  time  before  the  Christian  era  ; 
and  none  can  well  deny  that  our  Saviour  has  expressly  re- 
cognized it,  in  Mark  13:  14.  Matt.  24,  15,  as  a  book  of  pro- 
phecy. Josephus  bestows  upon  it  more  commendations,  than 
.upon  any  book  of  the  Old  Testament ;  Antiq.  Lib.  x.  I  am 
aware  how  mucli  has  been  said,  on  account  of  the  Jewish 
classification  of  the  book  in  question  among  the  Hagiography 
or  D"'SW3 .  This  indicates,  it  is  averred,  that  the  book  was 
composed  very  late,  i.  e.  a  very  considerable  time  after  the 
other  prophetic  books,  and  that  the  Jews  did  not  deem  it  wor- 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OP  THE  HEBREWS.  127 

thy  of  a  place  among  their  prophetic  books  in  general.  The 
questions  to  which  these  allegations  give  rise,  are  of  impor- 
tance ;  and  some  of  them  will  be  resumed  and  examined  in 
the  sequel.  But  nothing  more  can  be  said  respecting  them 
at  present,  inasmuch  as  we  are  bound  now  to  pursue  the  in- 
teresting theme  that  has  so  long  occupied  our  attention.  We 
must  not  take  our  leave  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  without  sub- 
joining a  few  remarks  in  respect  to  the  character  of  these  extra- 
ordinary men. 

The  mental  endowments  of  many  of  them  are  sufficiently 
disclosed  by  the  works  which  they  have  left  behind  them. 
There  is  indeed  among  them,  as  among  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  a  great  diversity  of  style,  and  evidently 
also,  of  taste  and  capacity.  The  Spirit  of  God,  when  he 
speaks  by  men,  does  not  create  new  mental  and  psychological 
powers,  but  employs  those  already  existing,  and  acts  by  en- 
lightening and  sanctifying  and  guiding  them,  still  leaving 
each  individual  to  develop  his  own  peculiar  characteristics 
of  taste  and  mental  endowments.  But  if  there  be  any  com- 
positions which  in  their  kind  exceed  many  of  the  Psalms, 
much  of  Isaiah,  Joel,  Habakkuk,  Nahum,  and  not  a  few  por- 
tions of  Jeremiah ;  if  there  ever  have  been  any  of  any  age  or 
nation  down  to  the  present  hour,  which  exceed  them,  I  have 
no  knowledge  of  such  compositions,  and  do  not  expect  to  at- 
tain to  such  a  knowledge.  The  prophets  need  only  to  be  read 
with  intelligence,  with  candour,  and  with  some  good  measure 
of  oriental  taste,  (I  believe  this  to  be  indispensable),  to  take, 
in  one's  estimation,  an  exalted,  I  would  say  the  most  exalted, 
place  among  the  literary  productions  of  any  or  of  all  ages. 

Other  works  of  the  Old  Testament,  indeed,  besides  those 
which  we  of  the  present  day  usually  name  prophecy,  most 
probably  came  from  the  pen  of  the  prophets.  But  of  these, 
as  they  are  anonymous,  1  do  not  speak  at  present.  I  shall 
come  to  the  consideration  of  them,  when  we  have  dismissed 
our  present  theme.  Let  us  now,  at  the  close  of  this  view  of 
the  Hebrew  writers,  teachers,  and  means  of  instruction,  bring 
distinctly  before  us  the  question  : 


128  §4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

What  was  the  moral  and  religious  character  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  ?  My  answer  must  be  brief ;  but  I  cannot  forego  it,  as 
their  character  stands  in  so  intimate  a  connection  with  the 
rise  of  the  Old  Test.  Scriptures.  I  must  say,  then,  from  both 
a  general  and  particulai'  survey  of  their  history,  that  as  a  body 
they  stand  on  a  lofty  preeminence  above  all  their  contempo- 
raries, whether  judges,  kings,  priests,  Levites,  or  the  common 
people  of  the  Hebrews.  I  speak,  of  course,  of  true  prophets, 
not  of  pretenders,  soothsayers,  and  fortune-tellers.  Not  a  fevsr 
of  these,  from  time  to  time,  arose  and  had  a  baleful  influence. 
But  the  Mosaic  Law  condemns  them,  and  the  true  prophets 
of  God  denounce  them  in  unmeasured  terras. 

From  the  fii'st  appearance  of  Hebrew  prophets  on  the 
stage  of  action,  down  to  Malachi  the  last  of  the  series,  promi- 
nent traits  of  character  mark  them  as  a  distinct  class  of  men. 
One  sees  in  them,  at  all  times  and  places,  an  animated  zeal 
for  the  worship  of  the  only  living  and  true  God,  and  a  corre- 
spondent, inextinguishable,  irreconcilable,  steadfast  hatred 
and  contempt  of  all  idols  and  false  gods,  of  their  worship, 
their  worshippers,  their  rites  and  ceremonies.  Conscious  of 
the  integrity  and  uprightness  of  their  own  designs,  the  prophets 
never  shrink  from  urging  their  views  upon  all  around  them. 
Do  threats  of  violence,  persecution,  or  even  martyrdom,  en- 
sue, they  never  shrink  back  from  their  undertaking.  It  mat- 
ters not  with  them  whom  they  are  addressing,  be  they  kings, 
princes,  nobles,  priests,  Levites,  or  common  people.  They 
have  but  one  and  the  same  message  for  all,  and  that  is,  the 
necessity  of  sincere  and  hearty  obedience  to  the  laws  of  God. 
Their  courage  and  resolution  never  fail,  or  even  seem  to  abate. 
Whether  Nathan  appears  before  David  to  accuse  him  of  adul- 
tery and  murder  ;  or  Elijah  before  Ahab  to  remonstrate 
against  his  oppression  and  idolatry  ;  or  Jeremiah  before  Jeho- 
iakim  or  Zedckiah  to  admonish  them  and  their  corrupt  cour- 
tiers ;  or  Urijah  before  Jehoiakim  who  persecuted  even  unto 
death ;  it  matters  not  as  to  the  fidelity,  boldness,  zeal,  and 
constancy  of  the  prophet.  They  do  not  appear  even  to  have 
asked  themselves,  whether  they  might  not  avoid  persecution, 


§  4.   LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  129 

or  danger,  or  death,  by  withholding  their  message.  Enough 
that  they  felt  commissioned  to  say:  Thus  saith  Jehovah. 
With  them  it  seems  to  have  made  no  practical  difference, 
whether  the  message  connected  with  their  commission  was  to 
be  addressed  to  the  king  on  the  throne,  or  to  the  beggar  on  the 
dunghill. 

On  the  side  of  right,  justice,  humanity,  uprightness,  sin- 
cerity, true  kindness,  we  are  always  sure  to  find  them.  The 
widow,  the  orphan  and  the  oppressed,  they  are  ever  ready  to 
succour.  They  spare  none  who  violate  the  sacred  principles 
of  the  moral  virtues  ;  surely  not  those  who  hanker  after  idols. 
On  the  side  of  law,  order,  decorum,  peaceful  demeanor,  we 
never  fail  to  meet  with  them.  Their  zeal  for  the  only  living 
and  true  God,  h.is  honour,  his  worship,  his  ordinances,  never 
cools,  and  never  permits  them  to  temporize  or  hesitate,  when 
any  of  these  are  in  jeopardy.  We  always  find  them,  more- 
over, to  possess  rational  and  spiritual  views  of  religion.  Rites 
and  ceremonies  they  regard  as  only  subordinate  means  to  an 
ultimate  and  higher  end.  Bigotry  and  superstition  form  no 
ingredients  of  their  character.  The  Mosaic  rites  with  them 
are  but  rites,  and  nothing  more.  That  these  were  only  the 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  is  the  sum  of  all  they  ever 
said,  or  would  say,  respecting  them. 

With  all  this,  they  were  unflinching,  undeviating  patriots, 
having  the  prosperity  of  their  country  most  deeply  at  heart. 
When  kings  and  counsellors  erred,  and  formed  dangerous 
alliances,  they  always  remonstrated  boldly.  They  did  not 
even  wait  to  be  sent  for  and  consulted,  on  such  occasions. 
Urged  on  by  the  fear  of  God  and  the  love  of  country,  they 
spake  with  entire  freedom  on  subjects  pertaining  to  the  weal 
of  the  commonwealth,  to  the  king  on  his  throne  even  when 
his  menacing  executioners  were  around  him,  or  to  the  raging 
multitude  who  were  ready  to  tear  them  in  pieces. 

With  all  this  boldness,  yea  indomitable  courage,  they  do 
not  appear  to  have  been  rash,  or  impetuous,  or  foolishly  prodi- 
gal of  life  by  exposing  themselves  unnecessarily  to  danger 


130  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

which  they  might  anticipate.  Ehjah,  after  delivering  his 
prophetic  message,  fled  from  the  face  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel, 
who  meant  to  take  his  life;  1  Kings  17:  1 — 6.  The  good 
Obadiah  concealed  a  hundred  prophets  in  caves,  and  supplied 
them  with  nuti'iment,  when  Jezebel  persecuted  them  with 
relentless  fury  ;  1  Kings  18:  4.  Elisha  bars  his  door  against 
the  approach  of  an  assassin ;  2  Kings  6:  31,  32.  Jeremiah 
hid  himself  from  the  rage  of  his  persecutors;  Jer.  36:  26. 
The  like  was  done  in  other  cases  ;  and  so  was  it  afterwards 
done  by  the  Saviour,  and  by  his  apostles.  Yet  when  duty 
called,  suffering  and  death  were  met  Vv'ith  equanimity  and  un- 
shrinking boldness,  by  these  faithful  ministers  of  virtue  and 
piety.  In  all  this,  they  differed  widely  from  the  raving  fa- 
natics, who  now  and  then,  in  every  age,  make  their  appear- 
ance, and  rush  on  death  with  a  fool-hardiness  which  makes 
no  distinction  between  the  claims  of  conscience  and  duty  and 
those  of  mere  enthusiasm  and  momentary  excitement. 

To  have  maintained  such  a  character,  and  this  through,  it 
may  be,  a  long  life,  required  an  unshaken  confidence  in  God. 
This  the  prophets  did  doubtless  possess.  They  were  con- 
scious of  something  within,  to  which  the  world  were  stran- 
gers, and  which,  therefore,  the  world  did  not  well  appreciate. 
Look  at  the  demeanor  of  Isaiah,  after  having  severely  re- 
proved Ahaz  for  his  league  with  the  Assyrian  king,  and  pre- 
dicted the  overruning  of  the  kingdom  by  the  Assyrian  forces  ; 
he  seals  up  the  prophecy,  and  suspending  his  reputation  and 
not  improbably  liis  life  on  the  issue,  he  waits  quietly  the  fulfil- 
ment of  what  he  had  predicted;  Isa.  8:  16 — 18.  A  most 
vivid  picture  is  drawn  in  Jer.  15:  ^0 — 21.  20:  7 — 18,  of  the 
agonies  which  this  prophet  endured  in  the  execution  of  his 
ofiice,  and  also  of  the  fidelity  and  confidence  which  he  still 
exhibited.  It  would  be  easy  to  enlarge  this  portion  of  our 
vsketch,  by  adding  many  instances  of  the  like  nature  ;  but  our 
present  limits  forbid. 

It  has  been  brought  as  a  matter  of  accusation  against  the 
prophets,  that  they  were   rigid  and  severe,  not  only  against 


§  4.   LITER  ATTIRE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  131 

the  heathen  in  general,  but  against  their  own  fellow  country- 
men whenever  they  betrayed  any  symptoms  of  idolatrous  in- 
clinations. This  charge  I  do  not  feel  much  interested  to  re- 
pel. If  the  Mosaic  law  can  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  criti- 
cism in  respect  to  matters  of  this  nature,  sure  I  am  that  the 
prophets  may  maintain  their  position.  Their  prophecies 
against  the  heathen  are  to  be  regarded  in  a  two-fold  light, 
viz.,  in  that  o^  religion  and  in  that  of  politics.  The  heathen 
were  all  idolaters.  They  were  of  course  naturally  enemies 
to  the  Jews,  who  despised  their  idol-gods.  The  heathen 
aimed  to  destroy  both  the  religion  and  the  national  indepen- 
dence of  the  Hebrews.  With  the  prophets,  it  was  a  question 
whether  religion  and  the  people  of  God  should  become  ex- 
tinct or  not,  when  they  contemplated  the  invasion  of  Judea 
by  the  heathen.  How  could  they  speak  on  such  occasions, 
either  as  patriots  or  as  worshippers  of  the  true  God,  without 
strong  feeling  and  much  excitement  ?  And  with  respect  to 
the  vicious  and  idolatrous  among  their  own  people,  were  not 
such  far  more  guilty  than  the  foreign  heathen  ?  I  know  well, 
indeed,  after  all  this,  that  the  times  in  which  the  prophets 
lived  stand  chargeable  with  no  small  portion  of  the  alleged 
severity  of  this  order  of  men.  The  all  but  universal  persua- 
sion was,  that  strenuousness  in  urging  the  claims  of  justice, 
and  in  humbling  enemies,  was  by  no  means  a  trait  in  the  ru- 
lers of  a  nation  which  could  be  disapproved  of  or  condemned. 
The  oriental  world  retain  that  characteristic  down  to  the  pre- 
sent hour.  In  Persia,  they  are  even  now  wont  to  say,  that 
such  a  Shah  as  Mohammed  Aga  Khan  was  the  kind  of  king 
that  Persia  needed.  In  their  view  he  was  the  model  of  a 
great  prince.  Yet  this  same  Mohammed  Aga  fairly  outdid 
Nero  in  atrocities.  I  do  not  say  this  in  order  to  justify  undue 
severity,  at  any  time  or  in  any  age.  But  it  is  ever  to  be  re- 
membered, that  Judaism  is  not  Christianity.  Law^  and  jus- 
tice were  inscribed  on  the  standards  of  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions. We  find  there  "  the  mount  that  burned  with  fire,  and 
blackness,  and  darkness,  and  tempest ;"  we  hear  the  trumpet 
proclaiming  the  law  with  a  sound  that  shakes  the  earth,  fills 


J8g  §  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

the  people  with  awful  terror,  and  makes  even  Moses  himself 
to  tremble  ;  Heb.  12:  18 — 21.  On  the  other  hand,  the  first 
proclamation  of  Christianity  is  the  greeting  of  the  joyful  an- 
gels :  "  Peace  on  earth ;  good  will  to  men."  How  can  it  be, 
that  the  principal  ministers  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion, i.  e.  the  prophets,  should  not  conform  to  the  tenor  of  the 
dispensation  itself  ? 

And  now,  let  the  intelligent  and  honest  reader  compare 
the  order  of  prophets  among  the  Hebrews,  with  any  other 
class  of  men,  not  of  that  nation  only,  but  among  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  ancient  world.  With  the  priests  and  Levites 
among  the  Jews  one  may  most  naturally  compare  them.  The 
offices  of  both  orders  were  important  to  the  purposes  of  the 
Mosaic  dispensation.  But  after  all,  the  priests  were  the  min- 
isters o^  form  and  ritual,  the  prophets  oi  substantial  morality 
and  jt»ie/'y.  How  little  do  we  hear  of  the  priests  in  the  Old 
Testament  records,  excepting  now  and  then  in  the  way  of  re- 
proof by  the  prophets  for  their  malversation.  Now  and  then 
a  high  priest,  a  man  of  superior  intellect,  piety,  and  patriotism, 
meets  our  view.  Yet  these  instances  are  few  and  far  be- 
tween. How  could  the  Jewish  people  take  the  same  interest 
in  them,  as  they  did  in  their  substantial  and  active  religious 
instructers  and  advisers  ?  Occasionally,  yet  quite  seldom,  a 
priest  is  also  a  prophet ;  and  then,  of  course,  we  may  expect 
from  him  a  prominent  part.  But  otherwise  we  find,  that  all 
the  Jewish  kings  go  to  the  prophets  for  advice,  in  their  exi- 
gencies ;  and  that  no  affairs  of  state  are  regarded  by  consid- 
erate men  as  promising  good,  which  have  not  the  concurrence 
and  co-operation  of  the  prophets.  Certainly  it  was  on  these, 
that  all  sober  and  pious  people  among  the  Hebrews  relied, 
far  more  than  they  did  upon  kings  and  princes  with  their 
counsellors,  or  upon  the  priests  and  Levites. 

1  would  moreover  solicit  a  comparison  of  the  prophets,  with 
the  men  of  an  alleged  similar  office  among  the  heathen. 
What  are  the  fiavTSigy  the  nQocpijTai,  d-eantajai,  XQ*](^f^oX6yoif 
vt'tiQO^drrug,  ovtiQaTToloi,  ortiQoay.oTioi,  and  the  isQoaxoTZoi, 
of  the  Greeks,  and  those  of  corresponding  names  among  the 


§  4.    LITERATURE  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  133 

Romans,  in  comparison  with  the  Hebrew  prophets  ?  The 
heathen  prophets,  (if  we  may  so  name  them),  made  an  art 
of  soothsaying.  They  played  all  manner  of  tricks,  and  re- 
sorted to  all  manner  of  devices,  in  order  to  support  the  repu- 
tation of  themselves  and  their  pretended  oracles.  Cicero  tells 
us,  that  two  diviners  could  never  look  each  other  in  the  face 
without  laughing ;  evidently  because  both  were  conscious  of 
the  frauds  which  they  practised,  and  of  the  success  of  their 
impositions.  And  wliere,  in  all  antiquity,  are  they  presented 
to  us  as  the  zealous  defenders  of  real  piety  and  good  morals  ? 
Where  are  their  missions  to  guide  and  instruct  the  people  in 
matters  of  morality  and  real  religion  ?  Superstitious  they 
were,  indeed,  to  great  excess.  The  persecution  and  death  of 
all  who  were  opposed  to  their  views,  not  unfrequently  follow- 
ed any  active  opposition.  But  neither  their  office,  their  lives, 
their  favourite  objects,  or  even  their  influence,  at  least  their 
influence  for  good,  will  bear  any  comparison  with  those  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets. 

To  this  extraordinary  class  of  men,  now,  we  owe  most,  if 
not  all,  of  the  O.  Test.  Scriptures.  What  one  among  them 
all,  if  Ezra  and  perhaps  Nehemiah  be  excepted,  came  with 
any  certainty  from  the  hands  of  a  priest,  who  was  not  also  a 
prophet  ?  Hence  in  tracing  the  history  of  the  rise  and  pro- 
gress of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  it  was  necessary  to  bring  before 
the  mind  a  somewhat  full  picture  of  the  class  of  men  who 
were  active  in  its  composition.  They  stand  on  a  lofty  eminence 
above  all  their  contemporaries.  They  bear  a  character  which- 
the  tongue  even  of  slander  cannot  assail  with  any  success. 
Perfect  men  we  need  not  and  do  not  sui)pose  them  to  have 
been.  But  it  would  be  difficult  perhaps  to  find,  under  the 
Christian  dispensation  itself  and  among  its  ministers,  men  of 
more  unblemished  and  exalted  character.  From  the  prevail- 
ing vices  of  their  times  they  plainly  stood  aloof.  It  would 
seem  that  in  some  respects  they  even  went  beyond  the  let- 
ter, (yet  not  beyond  the  true  spirit),  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  I 
cannot  call  to  mind  a  single  instance  of  polygamy  or  concu- 
Unage  among  them ;  although  the  Law  of  Moses  allowed  at 
12 


134  §  5.   HISTORY  OF  CA.NON, 

least  the  former,  or  at  any  rate  did  not  forbid  it.  The  alleged 
case  of  the  polygamy  of  Isaiah  (chap.  vii.  viii.),  turns  out  to  be 
wholly  without  proof  or  foundation,  when  the  meaning  of  the 
prophet  is  strictly  examined.  The  virgin  who  was  to  con- 
ceive and  bear  a  son,  in  case  we  insist  on  her  marriage  an- 
tecedent to  his  birth,  is  not  spoken  of  still  as  the  wife  of  the 
prophet,  or  as  about  to  become  his  wife.  I  cannot  doubt  that 
the  great  law  of  monogamy,  which  the  God  of  nature  has  im- 
pressed upon  our  race  by  dividing  it  into  halves  between  the 
sexes,  was  practically  recognized  and  complied  with  by  the 
prophets  as  a  body. 

Such  are  the  men,  then,  from  whom  come  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.  God  has  put  an  honour  upon  them  far  above 
that  which  belonged  to  priests  and  Levites.  How  could  this 
have  taken  place,  if  the  n7?/«/ was,  in  his  eyes,  entitled  to  the 
most  conspicuous  place  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  ? 

It  would  be  a  most  interesting  topic  of  discussion,  were  we 
to  pursue  inquiries  respecting  the  times,  places,  and  manner 
of  prophesying  or  preaching  among  the  Hebrews.  The  cha- 
racteristics of  prophetic  discourse,  its  tropical  language,  its 
symbol,  its  allegory,  the  manner  of  delivering  it  and  of  pre- 
serving it,  the  impression  which  it  made,  the  topics  which 
were  the  most  usual  themes  of  it — all  these  and  other  matters 
in  relation  to  the  subject  it  would  be  delightful  to  discuss. 
But  these  belong  to  an  appropriate  treatise  on  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  and  must,  for  the  sake  of  brevity  and  unity  of  de- 
sign, be  excluded  from  our  present  consideration. 

§  5.    Continued  Jdsfory  of  the  Canon  ;  hooks  supposed  to  hear 
the  names  of  their  authors. 

It  is  time  to  inquire  in  what  position  we  now  stand  in  re- 
spect to  the  Canon  of  the  O.  Test.  Scriptures.  Beginning, 
as  we  have  done,  with  Moses,  the  greatest  prophet  of  all  in 
ancient  days,  and  following  the  books  down  whose  authors  are 
known,  we  have,  according  to  the  representations  made  above, 
the  Pentateuch,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel  (for  I  can- 


§   5.    BOOKS  OP  DOUBTFUL  AUTHORS.  135 

not  regard  this  work  as  supposititious),  and  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets.  If  there  be  any  exceptions  to  these,  they  must  be 
some  parts  of  Isaiah  and  of  Zechariah,  which,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen,  are  thought,  by  most  of  the  recent  critics  in  Ger- 
many, to  belong  to  anonymous  writers  ;  and  possibly  the  book 
of  Jonah  may  have  been  written  by  a  person  different  from  the 
prophet  himself.  Whether  this  be  so  or  not,  is  a  question  which 
belongs  to  the  special  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
does  not  affect  at  all  the  nature  and  design  of  my  present  un- 
dertaking ;  for  it  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  that  even  the 
anonymous  compositions  among  these,  (if  such  there  are), 
must  have  sprung  from  so  called  prophets  ;  and,  with  scarce- 
ly any  exceptions,  if  any  at  all,  from  prophets  before  the  ter- 
mination of  the  Babylonish  exile.  With  us  the  question  at 
present  is  not,  what  specific  individual  wrote  this  or  that  book 
of  Scripture,  or  this  or  that  part  of  any  book,  but  whether  it 
was  written  by  such  men  as  gave  to  the  composition  a  right  to 
be  placed  among  the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews. 

In  our  historical  sketch  of  the  prophets,  we  have  passed 
in  brief  review  the  works  which  bear  their  names,  and  in  re- 
spect to  which  we  do  not  think  there  is  any  reasonable  ground 
of  doubt  as  to  their  genuineness.  We  now  come  to  a  second 
class  of  books,  which,  without  bearing  the  name  of  their  au- 
thors, seem  to  ascribe  their  composition  to  particular  individ- 
uals, in  the  inscriptions  affixed  to  them.  In  consequence  of 
this,  I  forbear  to  put  them  among  the  books  which  all  con- 
fess to  be  anonymous.  Of  the  books  now  before  us,  some 
appear  to  be  properly  assigned,  as  to  most  of  their  contents, 
to  particular  individuals  ;  while  the  inscriptions  prefixed  to 
others  are  of  a  doubtful  character. 

We  begin  with  the  first  class  of  these.  And  to  this  class 
belongs  the  book  of  Psalms.  That  this  was  principally  com- 
posed by  David,  has  been  generally  acknowledged.  (I  have 
found  no  one  but  Lengerke  who  seems  to  doubt  or  deny  this). 
But  there  were  several  coadjutors,  some  contemporary  and 
others  not,  in  this  work.  Thirty-four  Psalms  only  are  with- 
out any  inscription  ;  but  the  inscriptioii,  does  not  always  give 


136  §  5.  HISTORY  OF  CANON. 

the  name  of  the  author,  for  sometimes  it  merely  refers  to  then 
existing  outward  circumstances,  sometimes  to  the  music  to  be 
employed,  and  then   to  some  special  use  of  the  Psalm.     A 
part  of  the  inscriptions  is  probably  from  the  hand  of  redac- 
tors, and  is  not  always  trustworthy.     About  one  hundred 
Psalms  are  usually  assigned  to  David  ;  some  of  which  per- 
haps arc  of  doubtful  authorship,  and  some  most  probably  did 
not  come  from  his  pen.     To  Moses  is  assigned  Ps,  90 ;  to 
Solomon,  Ps.  72.  127  ;  to  Asaph,  Ps.  50.  74—83,  making 
eleven  ;  to  Heman,  Ps.  88 ;  to  Ethan,  Ps.  89.     De  Wette 
himself  concedes,  that  a  number  of  the   anonymous  Psalms 
may  not  improbably  be  assigned  to  David  and  his  contempo- 
raries.    Ten  Psalms,  i.  e.  Ps.   42—47.  84.  85.  87.  88,  are 
usually  supposed  to  be  assigned,  by  the  titles,  to  the  sons  of 
Korah,  i.  e.  to  Korahites,  who  were  priests  and  sons  of  Levi. 
The  usual  title  is :   To  the  chief  musician,  for  the  sons  of 
Korah  /but  tTp  '^snb  may  also  designate  the  authorship  of 
the  Psalms,  inasmuch  as  h  often,  and  even  usually,  stands  be- 
fore an  author's  name,  as  indicating  the  source  whence  the 
composition   sprang.     What  inclines  one  to  doubt  that  sense 
of  the  expression  here,  is  the  plurality  or  partnership  which 
it  would  make  in  the  authorship  ;  a  thing  literally  impossible 
in  compositions  so  brief,   and  of  such  a  marked  character. 
Moreover,  one  might  ahuost  say  of  the  Psalms  in  question  : 
A  greater  than  David  is  here.     From  one  pen  and  one  heart 
they  must  have  come ;  and  that  the  authorship  should  be 
assigned  in  such  an  indefinite  way  as  the  expression  sons  of 
Korah  would  indicate,  that  a  partnership  in  the  composition 
of  such  pieces  should  be  deemed  feasible,  are  serious  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  supposing  that  authorship  is  indicated  by 
the  title. 

For  our  present  purpose,  indeed,  it  matters  not  who  was 
the  particular  author  of  this  or  that  Psalm.  The  authors  na- 
med, almost  without  exception,  lived  at  or  near  the  time  of 
David.  A  few  Psalms  are  unquestionably  of  later  origin  ; 
some  of  tliem  were  composed  at  the  period  of  the  captivity,  and 
even  after  the  exile ;  e.  g.  Ps.  85.  106,  probably  107.  126. 


§  5.    BOOKS  OF  DOUBTFUL  AUTHORS.  137 

129.  137. 147.  De  Wette  himself  confesses  it  to  be  doubtful, 
whether  any  of  the  Psalms  (e.  g.  44.  60.  74.  76.  79.  83.  119, 
reckoned  by  some  as  of  Maccabaean  times)  are  to  be  assigned 
to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees  ;  Einleit.  §  270.  3d  ed.  That 
question  I  take  to  be  now  generally  regarded  as  settled  by 
Hassler,  in  his  Comm.  Grit,  de  Pslamis  Maccab.  1827.  Eich- 
horn  and  Gesenius  moreover  doubt  so  late  an  origin.  Rosen- 
mueller  unequivocally  abandons  such  a  position,  in  the  pre- 
face to  his  compendious  Comm.  in  Psalmos,  1833  ;  while,  in 
explaining  Fs.  74:  8,  he  again  adopts  it.  The  fact,  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  was  long  in  the  process  of  formation,  (if  we 
begin  with  David,  about  1050  B.  C.  and  go  down  to  536 — 
457,  the  time  at  and  after  the  return  from  the  captivity  in 
which  some  scriptural  books  were  written,  we  must  make 
more  than  500  years  for  the  period  of  formation),  occasioned 
it  to  be  compiled  in  five  various  books.  Thus  we  have  in  the 
first  book,  Ps.  i — xli ;  in  the  second  book,  Ps.  xlii — Ixxii ; 
in  the  third,  Ps.  Ixxii i — Ixxxix  ;  in  the  fourth,  Ps.  xc — cvi  ; 
in  the  fifth,  Ps.  cvii — cl.  At  what  particular  time  these  vari- 
ous portions  or  books  were  collected  and  published,  we  do  not 
know  for  certainty.  But  it  is  quite  manifest,  that  in  general 
the  older  Psalms,  i.  e.  those  of  David's  time,  were  first  col- 
lected ;  and  so  in  succession,  as  Psalms  worthy  of  introduc- 
tion were  composed.  Now  and  then  some  more  ancient  com- 
positions make  their  appearance  in  the  later  books  of  the 
Psalms,  viz.  in  the  fourth  and  fifth,  which  had  been  over- 
looked in  the  former  compilations.  If  any  Psalms  were  ad- 
ded in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  it  would  seem  then  to  be 
nearly  or  quite  certain,  that  they  would  be  found  in  the  fifth 
and  hist  book.  But  as  the  alleged  Maccabaean  Psalms  most- 
ly belong  to  the  earlier  rather  than  the  later  portions  of  the 
book,  the  improbability  of  their  late  composition  becomes 
too  great  to  support  a  critical  belief.  The  early  establishment 
of  such  musical  choirs  as  belonged  to  the  temple-service,  both 
old  and  new,  would  cause  all  psalms  and  hymns  fitted  for  that 
service  to  be  early  and  earnestly  sought  for.  We  may  there- 
fore, without  any  danger  of  erring,  place  the  completion  of 
12* 


138  §  5.  nisTORY  OF  canon. 

the  book  of  Psalms  at  a  period  antecedent  to  the  death  of 
Malachi,  for  it  will  not  be  seriously  contended  that  anything 
in  them  obliges  us  to  assume  that  they  are  later.  On  the 
question,  whether  the  anonymous  Psalms  were  properly  in- 
jeluded  among  the  contents  of  the  sacred  books,  we  are  not 
competent  to  pass  a  judgment  which  is  grounded  on  historical 
and  minute  information,  since  we  have  not  such  information, 
and  cannot  obtain  it.  But  it  is  enough  for  our  present 
purpose,  if  we  can  show  that  the  book  of  Psalms,  as  it  now 
is,  comes  down  from  a  period  near  the  death  of  Malachi. 
The  contrary  of  this  we  may  challenge  any  criticism  to  es- 
tablish. 

The  book  of  Proverbs  may  well  be  referred  to  Solomon 
as  its  principal  author.  The  Hebrew  is  of  the  golden  age, 
and  speaks  most  decidedly  against  a  late  composition.  The 
titles  which  we  find  in  Prov.  1:  1.  10:  1,  ascribe  the  work  to 
Solomon.  Possibly  22;  17 — 24:  34,  may  have  originated 
from  another  hand,  and  been  incorporated  by  Solomon.  Chap. 
25:  1  gives  an  entirely  new  and  singular  title  :  "  These  are 
the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  king 
of  Judah  transcribed,  or  copied  out,  ^p^^rirfi .  I  understand 
this  of  transcription  from  some  Ms.  of  Solomon,  which  had 
not  before  (so  to  speak)  been  published.  The  verb  ^p'^riS'tn 
cannot  possibly  be  understood  of  original  composition,  for 
^isrs  would  be  the  word  to  desionate  that.     De  Wette  under- 

:  IT  *-' 

Stands  Prov  25:  1  as  asserting,  that  the  men  of  Hezekiah  re- 
duced to  writing  proverbs  that  were  orally  circulated  before, 
and  ascribed  to  Solomon.  But  this  too  would  require  ^2n3. 
Be  this  matter  however  as  it  may,  it  makes  nothing  to  our 
present  purpose.  That  the  composition  is  not  late,  is  agreed 
on  all  hands.  Prov.  xxx.  is  ascribed  to  Agur  ;  Prov.  xxxi. 
to  king  Lemuel,  as  taught  by  his  mother.  The  time  of  their 
composition  we  know  not.  But  De  AYette  himself,  (always 
inclined  to  make  the  origin  of  books  as  late  as  possible),  fully 
concedes,  that  they  could  not  have  been  written  after  the 
Babylonish  exile;  Einh  §  281. 

EcCLESiASTES  was  regarded  by  all  the  ancients  as  a  pro- 


§  5.   BOOKS  OF  DOUBTFUL  AUTHORS.  139 

ductlon  of  Solomon.     But  doubts  respecting  such  an  origin 
have  recently  been  brought  forward,  and  seem  to  be  of  such 
a  nature  as  cannot  easily  be  solved.     The  title  (Ecc.  1:1) 
seems  to  appropriate  the  work  to   Solomon.     Yet  the  hke 
language  might  be   employed  by  a  later  writer,  whose  plan 
was  to  repeat  the  sayings  and  detail  the  experience  of  Solo- 
mon.    Peculiarly  impressive  does  the  book  become,  in  re- 
spect to  the  subject  of  the  emptiness  and  vanity  of  all  earth- 
ly objects  and  pursuits,  when  presented  as  derived  from  the 
experience  and  reflections  of  such  a  king,  who  was  at  the  very 
summit  of  human  greatness.     That  this,  however,  belongs 
rather  to  the  plan  of  the  book  than  to  the  category  of  realities, 
seems  to  be  made   probable   by  arguments  drawn  from  the 
matter  and  manner  of  the  book.     The  complaints,  in  many 
parts  of  the  book,  of  crushing  oppression  (Ecc.  4:  1)  ;  of  the 
exactions  of  provincial  rulers  (5:  7)  ;  of  the  exaltation  of  low 
men  to  high  offices  (10:  5 — 7)  ;  of  the  present  as  inferior  to 
the  past  (7:  10)  ;  of  the  frequent  changes  of  regents  and  their 
unsuitable  behaviour — all  seem  to  betoken  a  book  written  at 
a  very  different  time  from  that  of  Solomon.     How  singular  it 
sounds,  moreover,  when  we  hear  Solomon  say  :  "  I  luas  king 
over  Israel  at  Jerusalem"  (1:  12)  ;  singular,  I  mean,  on  the 
supposition  that  Solomon  was  the   actual  author.     Did  any 
one  need  to  be  told  this  ?     How  singular  for  Solomon  him- 
self to  say,  that  '  he  was  wiser  and  richer  than  all  the  kings 
in  Jerusalem   before  him'  (1:  16.  2:  7,  9),  when  David  his 
father  was  the  only  king  who  had  reigned  there.     The  dic- 
tion, moreover,  of  this  book    differs   so  widely  from   that  of 
Solomon  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  tliat  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  both  came  from  the  same  pen.     Chaucer  does  not  differ 
more  from  Pope,  than  Ecclesiastes  from  Proverbs.     It  seems 
to  me,  when  I  read  Cohelcth,   that  it  presents  one  of  those 
cases  which  leave  no  room  for  doubt,  so  striking  and   promi- 
nent is  the  discrepancy.     In  our  English  translation  this  is  in 
some  good  measure  lost,  by  running  both  books  in  the  same 
English  mold.     There  is  only  a  single  trait  of  resemblance, 
which  any  one  would  consider  as  marked  or  noticeable  ;  and 


140  §  5.   HISTORY  OP  CANOX. 

this  is,  the  sententious  or  apothegmatic  turn  of  the  book.  In 
this  respect  one  is  often  led  to  direct  his  thoughts  toward  the 
book  of  Proverbs,  which  abounds  in,  and  almost  wholly  con- 
sists of,  sayings  of  such  a  sententious  nature.  Yet  how  very 
different  is  the  dictio7i  and  style  of  each  book,  in  the  original 
Hebrew.  And  then  the  general  circle  of  thought  is  still  more 
discrepant.  The  philosophic  doubts  and  puzzles  of  Ecclesi- 
astes,  and  the  manner  of  discussing  them,  have  no  parallel 
either  in  Proverbs,  or  in  any  other  part  of  the  Hebrew^  Scrip- 
tures. They  remind  one  of  many  things  discussed  by  So- 
crates, in  the  Dialogues  of  Plato.  I  cannot  help  thinking 
that  the  writer  must  have  been  a  Hebrew  who  had  resided 
abroad,  where  he  had  formed  some  acquaintance  with  the  phi- 
losophic discussions  of  the  Greeks.  So  unique  is  the  tenor 
of  his  book,  and  so  widely  different  from  the  usual  circle  of 
Hebrew  thinking,  that  no  very  probable  account  can  be  given 
of  these  matters,  without  such  a  supposition. 

As  to  the  age  of  Ecclesiastes,  critics  have  widely  disagreed, 
ranging  from  Solomon  down  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 
But  the  appeal  usually  made  to  the  language  or  diction  of  the 
book,  in  proof  of  a  very  late  age,  will  hardly  stand  the  test. 
Knobel,  in  his  recent  and  much  praised  commentary  on  the 
book  of  Ecclesiastes,  asserts  and  has  endeavoured  to  show,  that 
the  book  is  deeply  tinctured  with  Chaldaisms,  and  words  of 
the  later  Hebrew.  He  even  thinks  that  it  savours  strongly  of 
the  diction  of  the  Rabbins  and  Talmudists.  But  the  scores 
of  his  Chaldaisms  have  been  reduced  by  a  later  writer,  better 
acquainted  with  this  idiom,  (Herzfeld,  a  German  Jew,  in  his 
notable  work,  Coheleth  translated  arid  explained,  1838),  to 
some  8  or  10  ;  and  his  later  Hebrew  words  (some  scores  more), 
to  some  1 1 — 15.  The  investigation  of  Herzfeld  is  so  thorough, 
that  appeal  from  it  seems  to  be  nearly  out  of  question.  And 
besides  the  fact,  that  the  quantity  of  later  Hebrew  diction  and 
Chaldaism  is  so  small,  we  must  take  into  view  the  additional 
consideration,  that  the  Phenician  language,  unquestionably  of 
the  same  character  as  the  Hebrew  in  its  basis,  resembles  more 
what  is  called  the  younger  Hebrew,  than  it  does  the  ancient. 


§  5.  BOOKS  OF  DOUBTFUL  AUTHORS.       141 

The  young  Hebrew,  therefore,  may  in  fact  be  very  old.  So 
Gesenius,  after  all  his  investigations  of  the  Phenician  ;  Hall. 
Lit.  Zeit.  1837.  No.  81. 

There  is  nothing,  either  in  the  matter  or  diction  of  the  book, 
absolutely  and  exactly  to  settle  its  age.  But  the  course  of 
thought  seems  to  indicate  an  acquaintance  with  philosophical 
disputes  ;  and  the  complaints  of  oppression,  of  frequent  change 
of  rulersj  of  the  exactions  of  provincial  satraps,  and  of  the  toils 
and  dangers  of  life — all  seem  to  indicate  some  period  of  its 
composition  under  the  Persian  government.  If  the  opinion 
of  Josephus  is  to  be  relied  upon  (Contra  Apion.  I.  §  8,  which 
will  be  hereafter  adduced  and  examined),  Ecclesiastes  must 
have  been  composed  at  some  period  before  the  death  of  Arta- 
xerxes  Longimanus,  i.  e.  antecedent  to  424  B.  C.  De  Wette 
and  Knobel  think,  that  the  end  of  the  Persian  period,  or  the 
beginning  of  the  Macedonian  one,  was  the  time.  But  there  are 
many  and  weighty  objections  against  such  a^supposition,  as  we 
shall  see  in  due  time. 

The  Canticles  present  a  difficulty  somewhat  like  to  that 
which  we  have  just  been  considering.  The  title  purports  that  the 
book  came  from  Solomon  ;  at  least  if  h^a  ?^b  is  to  be  regarded 
as  indicative  of  authorship  ;  which  is  usually  the  fact.  That 
it  may  be  regarded  in  this  light,  so  far  as  the  language  is  con- 
cerned, there  is  no  doubt.  But  if  the  idiom  of  the  book, 
which  differs  not  a  little  from  that  of  the  book  of  Proverbs,  is 
to  be  taken  into  consideration  ;  if  moreover  such  passages  as 
Cant.  1:  4,5, 12.  3:  6—11.  7:  5.  8:  11, 12,  be  attentively  ex- 
amined, the  difficulty  of  regarding  Solomon  as  the  proper 
author  of  the  book  will  not  be  inconsiderable.  That  Solomon 
is  the  subject  of  the  book,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  That  some 
writer  contemporary  with  him  may  have  composed  it,  is  quite 
possible,  notwithstanding  its  idiom.  The  freshness  of  all  its 
scenery  seems  to  betoken  much  in  favour  of  such  a  view. 
The  diction  is  neither  Chaldaic  or  Aramaean  in  such  a  de- 
gree as  to  render  this  either  impossible  or  improbable.  Her- 
der and  Dopke  strenuously  maintain  the  early  date  of  the  book. 
De  AVette  thinks  the  composition  of  the  poem  may  have  been 


142  §  6.   HISTORY   OF   CANON. 

early,  and  that  it  may  have  been  only  orally  preserved  for  a 
long  time ;  which,  moreover,  he  supposes  may  account  for  the 
want  of  regular  order  and  unity  in  the  present  arrangement 
of  the  book.  But  I  cannot  deem  this  probable,  considering 
that  the  book  obtained  a  place  in  the  sacred  Canon.  It  is 
enough  for  my  present  purpose,  however,  that  the  book  was, 
beyond  any  reasonable  critical  doubt,  included  in  the  Canon 
whenever  the  same  was  completed.  Josephus,  at  any  rate, 
appears  most  plainly  to  include  it ;  for  without  it  we  cannot 
make  out  the  number  of  sacred  books  which  he  specifies. 

The  theological  scruples  which  have  raised,  or  at  any  rate 
sought  for,  objections  against  the  Canticles,  stand  on  the  ba- 
sis of  its  contents.  How,  it  is  asked,  can  an  amatory  poem  be 
a  part  of  Scripture  ?  This  question  brings  into  view  the  main 
objection  which  is  felt  against  the  book.  On  this  question  I 
hope  to  say  something  in  the  sequel ;  but  in  order  to  avoid 
repetition,  I  must  omit  remarks  pertaining  to  this  part  of  the 
subject  for  the  present.  One  thing  seems  to  be  quite  clear, 
viz.  that  whoever  they  were  that  inserted  this  book  in  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  they  must  have  regarded  the  work  as  of  a 
religious  cast.  There  is  no  other  example  in  all  the  0.  Testament 
of  any  work  of  a  different  tenor.  If  Ruth  or  Esther  should  be 
appealed  to  as  exceptions  to  this  remark,  it  would  be  easy  to 
show,  that  both  of  these  books  have  an  important  bearing  on 
points  of  consequence  in  the  politico-ecclesiastical  history  of  the 
Jewish  nation. 


§  6.    Continued  History  of  the    Canon;     Boohs   which  are 

Anonymous. 

Thus  far  of  books  supposed  to  be  inscribed  with  the  names 
of  their  author,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  Psalms.  We 
come  now  to  those  which  are  anonymous. 

Among  these  the  book  of  Job  stands  the  most  conspicuous, 
whether  we  have  respect  to  the  splendid  poetry  which  it  ex- 
hibits, or  to  the  nature  of  the  discussion  with  which  it  is  occu- 
pied.     Who  wrote  it  ?    When  was  it  written  ?    When  annexed 


§  6.   BOOKS   ANONTJIOUS.  143 

to  the  Canon  ?  These  are  questions  about  which  there  has 
been  and  still  is  endless  dispute.  The  main  difficulty  is,  first, 
the  want  of  any  proper  historical  evidence  respecting  its  au- 
thorship ;  then,  secondly,  the  want  of  internal  evidence  of  a 
definite  and  decisive  character,  as  to  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written.  It  abounds  in  references  to  natural  scenery,  and  to 
Iduraaean  and  Egyptian  localities  and  objects ;  but  this  does 
not  help  to  decide,  whether  it  was  written  earlier  or  later. 
Its  idiom,  which  abounds  in  Aramaean  diction,  and  often  ap- 
I\roaches  the  Arabic,  seems  to  betoken  an  author  who  lived 
out  of  Palestine,  or  at  least  in  a  border  country.  But  its  Ara- 
maean idioms  are  not  sufficient  to  settle  the  question  in  fa- 
vour of  a  later  age  for  the  book.  Very  much  in  this  book 
closely  resembles  the  diction  of  most  of  the  Psalms  and  of 
Proverbs.  And  besides  this,  it  is  an  acknowledged  fact,  that 
nearly  all  the  poetry  of  the  Old  Testament  verges  towards 
the  dialect  in  question.  The  Aramaean  hue  is  to  Hebrew 
poetry,  something  like  what  the  Doric  one  is  to  the  chorusses 
of  Greek  tragedy.  Nothing  decisive,  therefore,  can  be  made  • 
out  from  this  quarter,  as  to  the  age  of  the  book. 

It  is  beyond  a  question,  that  the  author  of  this  book  was 
acquainted  with  many  of  the  Hebrew  notions  of  things,  with 
their  opinions,  their  formulas  of  speech,  and  the  like.  With 
events  in  general  before  and  after  the  flood,  the  book  mani- 
fests an  acquaintance.  But  all  this  does  not  decide  anything 
for  certainty,  as  to  the  time  in  which  it  was  written.  Carp- 
zov,  Eichhorn,  Jahn,  Stuhlmann,  Berthholdt,  and  the  great 
mass  of  English  critics,  give  to  the  book  a  date  anterior  to 
the  time  of  Moses.  A  number  of  writers  have  referred  it  to 
Solomon,  or  to  some  person  of  his  time.  More  recently,  Ge- 
senius,  Bernstein,  De  Wette  (first  two  editions  of  his  Intro- 
duction), Umbreit,  and  others  have  set  the  work  down  to  the 
Chaldee  period,  i.  e.  to  some  period  after  610  B.  C.  De  Wette 
now  dates  it  earlier,  (as  well  he  may),  because  of  Ezekiel's  ex- 
press recognition  of  Job,  in  chap.  14: 14, 16,  20.  Rosenmuel- 
ler  (Proleg.  p.  20)  places  it  before  the  time  of  Hezekiah. 
Thus  the  whole  matter  is  in  a  floating  state ;  but  still,  the 


144  §  6.    HISTORY   OF   CANON". 

only  question  really  important  to  us  at  present  is,  whether  it 
was  composed  either  before,  or  during,  the  time  of  the  Baby- 
lonish exile.  If  so,  it  then  was  undoubtedly  a  part  of  the  Jew- 
ish Canon,  at  the  close  of  that  exile. 

It  is  singular  to  see  with  what  warm  zeal  the  question  about 
the  age  of  this  poem  has  been,  and  still  is  discussed.     Not  a 
few  writers  set  about  the  work  of  discussion,  as  if  the  matter 
were  one  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesiae.     How  can  it  be  so  to 
us?     Of  what  consequence  is  it,  whether  the  book  is  older 
or  younger,  if  it  belong  to  the  Canon,  and  did  belong  to  ijt 
before  it  was  formally  closed  ?     Not  a  few,  moreover,  appeal 
to  the  speeches  of  Job,  Eliphaz,  Bildad,  Zophar,  and  Elihu, 
in  support  of  doctrinal  propositions  ;   just  as  if  these  angry 
disputants,  who  contradict  each  other,  and  most  of  whom  God 
himself  has  declared  to  be  in  the  wrong  (Job  42:  7 — 9),  were 
inspired  when  they  disputed  !     The  man  who  wrote  the  book, 
and  gave  an  account  of  this  dispute,  might  be  (I  believe  he 
was)  inspired ;  he  had  a  great  moral  purpose  in  view ;  but 
how  Job  is  to  be  appealed  to  for  a  sample  of  doctrine,  who 
curses  the  day  of  his  birth,  and  says  many  things  under  gi'eat 
excitement,  I  am  not  able  to  understand.     Are  we  indeed  to 
follow  him  in  the  sentiment  of  chap.  14:  7,  10,  12?  "There 
is  hope  of  a  tree,"  says  he,  "  if  it  be  cut  down,  that  it  will 
sprout  again,  and   that  the  tender  branch  thereof  will  not 
cease.  .  .  .  But  man  dieth,  and  wasteth  away ;  yea,  man  giv- 
eth  up  the  ghost,  and  where  is  he  ?  .  .  .  Man  lieth  down,  and 
riseth  not ;  till  the  heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not  awake, 
nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep."     And  are  we  to  appeal  to 
his  angry  friends,  who  are  in  the  wrong  as  to  the  main  point 
in  question,  for  confirmation  of  a  doctrinal  sentiment  of  the 
gospel  ?     The  practical  amount  of  the  matter  is,  that  those 
who  refer  in  such  a  way  to  this  book,  merely  select  what  they 
like,  and  leave  the  rest.     They  complain,  however,  in  other 
cases,  of  doings  like  to  this.     They  accuse   the  Unitarians 
and  the  Rationalists  of  very  unfair  and  unscriptural  practices, 
in  so  doing  with  other  parts  of  the  Bible.     After  all,  it  seems 
to  be  quite  plain,  that  one  might  as  well  appeal  to  what  is 


§  6.    BOOKS  ANONYMOUS.  145 

Said  by  all  manner  of  persons  who  are  brought  to  view  in  the 
Gospels,  as  authoritative  in  matters  of  doctrine,  because  what 
they  said  stands  in  an  inspired  book,  as  appeal  to  the  speeches 
of  Job  and  his  friends  for  a  like  purpose.  When  will  it  be 
understood,  that  the  disputants  themselves  were  not  inspired  ? 
Did  they,  moreover,  all  speak  in  'poetry^  and  all  in  the  same 
cast  of  poetry,  exhibiting  such  a  unity  of  style  ?  A  rare  fac- 
ulty o?  improvisation  those  five  men  must  have  had,  if  we  as- 
sume such  a  ground  as  this. 

-  But  I  am  indulging  in  digression.  I  return  to  our  immedi- 
ate object.  To  my  own  mind,  the  strongest  objection  against 
the  great  age  of  the  book  of  Job  is,  that  it  is  nowhere  re- 
ferred to  in  all  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  except  in  the  case  of 
Ezekiel ;  and  it  appears  to  have  produced  no  influence  upon 
the  manner  and  tenor  of  the  Hebrew  sacred  writings.  I  am 
not  able  to  conceive  how  such  a  book  should  have  existed  so 
long,  and  have  produced  no  more  effect ;  for  there  is  not  even 
a  single  quotation  of  it,  or  a  reference  to  it  in  the  other 
O.  Test.  Scriptures.  Not  so  with  the  Pentateuch.  I  must 
therefore  believe,  on  the  whole,  tlmt  the  book  of  Job  was 
composed  during  the  troublous  times  of  the  Jews,  in  the  later 
periods  of  their  kingly  government.  Yet  the  fact,  that  there 
is  not  in  all  the  book  a  distinct  and  certain  reference  to  any- 
thing belonging  and  peculiar  to  the  Mosaic  institutions,  rites, 
sacrifices,  and  feasts,  or  to  Hebrew  personages,  or  history,  is 
almost  astounding,  and  seems  to  stand  in  our  way  when  we 
assign  to  the  book  a  later  origin.  Especially  is  this  so,  when 
we  consider  that  it  was  a  Hebrew  who  wrote  this  book  ;  which 
beyond  all  reasonable  question  must  have  been  the  case.  Yet 
it  is  quite  possible,  that  the  writer's  pla7i  definitely  precluded 
references  of  the  nature  in  question.  It  was  a  part  of  his 
dehberate  plan  to  compose  a  book  independent  of  Jewish 
peculiarities,  and  based  upon  the  more  general  views  of  the 
patriarchal  religion.  It  is  certainly  easier  to  believe  this, 
than  to  suppose  the  book  to  be  very  ancient,  and  yet  not  be 
able  to  find  a  trace  of  its  existence  or  influence,  until  the 
time  of  Ezekiel.     To  allege,  as  some  have  done,  that  the 

13 


146  §  6.    HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

reference  in  Ezekiel  (14:  14,  16,  20)  is  only  to  an  allegorical 
personage,  and  tlierefore  proves  nothing — is  not  alleging 
what  seems  to  be  very  probable.  Were  Noah  and  Daniel, 
who  are  joined  with  Job,  mere  fictitious  personages  in  Eze- 
kiel's  view  ?  If  not,  it  hardly  seems  probable  that  this  pro- 
phet has  united  real  and  allegorical  personages,  and  placed 
them  both  in  the  same  predicament.  Besides  this,  the  Job 
to  whom  Ezekiel  refers,  seems  plainly  to  be  such  a  personage 
as  the  book  of  Job  presents  to  our  view. 

If,  as  has  been  alleged  by  some  critics,  the  book  of  Job 
was  composed  by  a  foreigner,  an  Aramaean  or  an  Arabian, 
how  came  he  by  such  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  diction  and 
rhythm  ?  It  would  be  next  lo  an  impossibility.  Above  all, 
how  came  the  Jews  to  admit  the  book  of  o,  foreigner  into  their 
sacred  Canon  ? 

Who  composed  the  book,  whether  Job  himself  or  some  of 
his  friends,  we  have  no  means  of  determining.  Exactly  when 
it  was  composed,  we  cannot  decide  for  want  of  data.  I  sup- 
pose, however,  that  no  one  well  acquainted  with  the  book, 
will  doubt  its  claims  to  a  place  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  although, 
before  Ezekiel's  time,  we  can  find  no  certain  traces  of  it. 

It  makes  nothing  against  this,  that  the  genuineness  of  the 
prologue  and  epilogue  to  the  book,  and  also  of  the  speech  of 
Elihu,  has  of  late  been  often  called  in  question.  The  criti- 
cism of  the  Destructives,  as  I  am  inclined  to  believe,  reached 
its  highest  point  of  culmination  some  time  since.  Its  sun  is 
now  descending.  Whenever  it  sets,  I  hope  and  trust  it  will 
set  to  rise  no  more.  The  same  spirit  which  makes  up  the 
Iliad  and  Odyssey  of  fragments  from  a  multitude  of  singing 
beggars  brought  accidentally  together,  has  made  up  the  book 
of  Job  in  the  same  way,  and  with  reasons  equally  good.  The 
most  recent  criticism,  however,  seems  verging  back  again  to- 
ward the  opinion  of  all  ages  and  nations,  which  knew  any- 
thing of  the  book  in  question,  viz.  the  opinion  that  the  whole 
of  this  book  belongs  to  one  author,  and  is  one  and  but  one 
work.  The  numerosity  oi  {\\q  book,  i.  e.  the  divisions  through- 
out into  groups  of  three,  strongly  favours  the  genuineness  of 


§  6.    BOOKS    ANONYMOUS.  147 

the  whole  book.  Moreover  the  poem,  without  the  prologue 
and  epilogue,  if  not  absolutely  unintelligible,  would  at  least 
lie,  in  every  reader's  mind,  in  a  dark,  confused,  and  unsatis- 
factory state.  De  Wette,  as  usual,  not  only  doubts  the  genu- 
ineness of  Elihu's  speech  (ch.  xxxii — xxxviii),  but  also  of 
27:  11 — 28:  28.  Doubting  seems  to  be  an  essential  element 
of  this  critic's  hterary  life  ;  and  he  appears  to  derive  more 
pleasure  from  it,  than  he  does  from  believing. 

Upon  the  whole  I  am  disposed  to  think,  that  few  persons 
who  are  familiar  with  the  course  of  the   human  mind  in  an- 
cient times,  as  to  doubts  and  reasonings  on  difficult  problems 
of  morals  or  of  the  divine  government  of  the  world,  will  yield 
their  assent  to  the  probability  of  the  very  early  origin  of  the 
book  of  Job.     The  main  question  of  the  book,  whether  the 
divine  Being  constantly  and  adequately  re^vards  virtue  and 
piety  and  punishes  sin  in  the  present  world,  is  one  that  seems  to 
spring  from  an  investigation  and  a  spirit  of  philosophizing, 
which  is  rarely  to  be  met  with  among  the  most  ancient  He- 
brews.    Ecclesiastes  is  full  of  a  similar  spirit ;  but  as  this 
book  is  manifestly  among  the  later  ones,  I  am  inclined  to 
place  the  book  of  Job  in  the  same  age,  i.  e.  in  the  Chaldean 
period  of  the  prophets,  or  not  long  before.     The  diction  de- 
cides nothing  certain  for  any  particular  age.     The  almost  un- 
equalled sublimity  of  the  composition,  the  rhythmical  perfec- 
tion of  its  parallelisms,  and  in  general  the  whole  contour  of 
the  style,  would  seem  to  mark  it  as  a  production  of  the  gol- 
den age  of  liebrew ;  as  also  do  its  many  resemblances  of  idi- 
om to  the  idiom  of  the  Psalms  and  Proverbs.     But  if  >the 
German  critics  are  in  the  right  as  to  Pseudo-Isaiah,  we  have 
an  eminent  example  in  a  late  age  of  the  like  graceful  and 
lofty  diction  and  sentiment.     At  all  events,  Ilabakkuk  be- 
longs to  the  Chaldean  period ;  and  he  has  few  equals  even  in 
the  golden  age  of  prophecy.     So  it  may  be  with  the  book  of 
Job.     Great  talents,  enlightened  and  guided  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  will  overcome  every  obstacle,  and  present  us  with  por- 
traits that  breathe,  and  move,  and  speak. 

The  book  of  Lamentations   is  without  an  inscription. 


148  §  6.   HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

But  from  the  most  ancient  times  it  has  been  attributed  to 
Jeremiah.  Tlie  contents,  tone,  spirit,  diction,  and  style  of  the 
book,  accord  entirely  with  tradition.  The  Septuagint  version 
has  prefixed  an  inscription  that  attributes  it  to  Jeremiah  ; 
which  at  least  shows  what  tradition  taught  some  130  or  more 
years  before  the  Christian  era.  Josephus  (Antiq.  X.  5.  1.) 
also  attributes  the  book  to  Jeremiah ;  but  he  avers,  that  it  was 
written  on  the  occasion  of  Josiah's  being  slain  by  Pharaoh 
Necho.  This  seems  to  accord  with,  and  most  probably  was 
deduced  from,  the  declaration  in  2  Chron.  35:  25,  viz.  that 
"  Jeremiah  lamented  for  Josiali,  and  all  the  singing  men  and 
singing  women  spake  of  Josiah  in  their  lamentations  to  this 
day."  Similar  compositions,  on  like  occasions,  we  find  in 
2  Sam.  1:  17 — 27.  3:33,  34.  Critics,  therefore,  have  been 
divided  in  opinion,  respecting  the  question,  whether  the  book 
of  Lamentations  was  written  before  or  after  the  capture  of  Je- 
rusalem. I  cannot  bring  my  own  mind,  however,  to  a  doubt 
respecting  this  question.  That  Jeremiah  composed  an  elegiac 
song  on  the  occasion  of  Josiah's  death,  as  the  book  of  Chroni- 
cles states,  I  have  no  doubt.  It  was  altogether  a  subject 
suited  to  the  taste  and  genius  of  this  writer.  But  that  our 
present  book  of  Lamentations  exhibits  this  elegiac  ode,  I 
must  greatly  doubt.  AVhat  is  there  in  it  about  Josiah  ?  It  is 
the  holy  city,  its  solemnities,  its  feasts,  its  people  gone  into 
captivity,  the  horrors  of  the  siege,  the  famine  and  pestilence 
that  ensued,  and  the  like,  on  which  the  book  dwells,  and 
which  constitute  the  whole  burden  of  the  elegies.  What  con- 
cern has  all  this  with  the  death  of  Josiah  ? 

But  be  this  matter  as  it  may,  there  can  be  no  question  that 
the  Lamentations  is  a  book  which  existed  before  the  return 
from  the  captivity  ;  and  it  takes  a  place  in  the  Canon  of  the 
Old  Test.  Scriptures,  because  it  contains  matter  so  deeply  in- 
teresting both  to  the  ancient  church  and  people  of  God.  Neo- 
logical  criticism  has  little  to  say  about  the  book,  seemingly 
because  it  contains  no  accounts  of  miraculous  events,  which 
are  sure  to  provoke  an  attack. 

We  have  yet  a  considerable  class  of  historical  books, 


§  6.   BOOKS   ANONYMOUS.  149 

which  bear  no  name  of  their  authors,  but  receive  a  name 
from  the  leading  subject  of  them,  viz.  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth, 
I.  and  11.  Samuel,  I.  and  IT.  Kings,  I.  and  II.  Chronicles, 
Esther,  perhaps  Nehemiah  and  Ezra.  Of  several  of  these  I 
have  already  spoken. 

The  book  of  Joshua  is  naturally  divided  into  two  parts. 
The  first  part,  chap.  i. — xii,  contains  the  history  of  the  con- 
quest of  Canaan  ;  the  second,  chap,  xiii — xxiv,  contains  the 
history  of  the  division  of  the  land,  and  of  subsequent  arrange- 
ments to  provide  for  obedience  to  the  laws.  According  to  the 
account  of  the  neological  critics,  it  is  full  of  myths  [i.  e.  stories  of 
miracles],  of  contradictions,  and  of  a  Levitical  spirit.  It  is  also 
pronounced  to  be  a  mere  book  of  fragments,  made  up  of  Elohistic 
and  Jehovistic  [?]  documents,  and  other  scraps  and  traditions 
which  had  floated  down  to  the  writer  on  the  surface  of  time. 
Van  Herwerden  divides  it  into  ten  separate  documents ;  but 
Koenig,  in  a  recent  work,  maintains  the  unity  of  the  book. 
This  same  writer  also  maintains,  that  it  was  written  at  or  near 
the  time,  when  the  events  which  it  records  took  place.  Oth- 
ers place  its  origin  at  the  time  of  Saul,  others  of  David,  of  Jo- 
siah,  and  even  of  the  exile.  If  we  can  place  any  dependence 
on  internal  evidence,  (and  why  not  ?)  then  would  Josh.  15:  63, 
which  speaks  of  "  the  Jebusites,  i.  e.  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem, as  not  driven  out,  but  dwelling  with  the  children  of  Ju- 
dah  unto  this  day^'*  compared  with  2  Sam.  5:  G — 9,  which 
shows  that  David  thoroughly  subdued  them,  seem  to  render  it 
very  probable,  that  the  book  was  composed  before  the  reign  of 
David,  or  at  least  before  his  conquest  of  Jerusalem.  Nothing 
can  be  more  natural  than  to  suppose,  that  a  record  would  be 
made  of  the  conquest  and  the  division  of  Palestine,  soon  after 
those  events.  How  could  the  division  and  apportionment  of  it 
be  rendered  authoritative  and  permanent,  unless  by  some 
record  of  the  same  ?  That  it  was  written  after  the  death  of 
Joshua  and  of  his  contemporary  elders,  seems  to  be  certain 
from  Josh.  24:  31,  where  Israel  is  spoken  of  as  serving  the 
Lord  until  after  the  death  of  these  persons.     So  the  death  of 

13* 


150  §  6.    HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron  is  recorded,  (Josh.  24:  33),  but  not 
of  his  successor  Phinehas.  But  if  the  book  be  ^o  fragmentary 
as  is  alleged,  then  such  declarations  would  only  go  to  show 
the  age  of  the  fragment  in  which  they  are  contained. 

Mr.  Parker  (in  his  additions  to  De  Wette,  II.  p.  188  seq.) 
has  exhibited  a  graphic  specimen  of  the  usual  neological  rea- 
soning. "  The  book  of  Joshua,"  he  suggests,  "  makes  fre- 
quent appeals  to  the  Law  of  Moses  ;  but  this  Laio  could  not 
have  been  written  until  after  the  time  of  Josiah ;  ergo,  the 
book  of  Joshua  could  not  have  been  written  until  after  the 
same  time."  The  «ftain- proposition  is  plainly  a  mere  petitio 
principii.    But  no  matter  :  Delenda  est  Carthago. 

The  Saynaritans,  along  with  the  Pentateuch,  have  also  a 
book  of  Joshua,  containing  much  of  what  is  in  the  Hebrew 
book  of  the  same  name,  with  additional  fabulous  matter  of 
their  own.  Was  there  not,  then,  a  book  of  Joshua,  when  the 
ten  tribes  separated  from  the  two,  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam  ? 
Appearances  seem  to  favour  this  supposition.  Those  tribes  re- 
tained the  Scriptures  then  extant,  but  never  added  any  more. 
I  would  not  deny  the  probability,  that  documents  of  several 
kinds  are  contained  in  the  book  of  Joshua ;  but  that  they 
passed  through  the  hands  and  under  the  revisal  of  some  one 
compiler,  whose  office  or  name  gave  authority  to  the  book,  I 
cannot  well  doubt.  Many  of  the  alleged  contradictions  and 
discrepancies  are  easily  removed,  on  such  a  ground ;  but  it 
comports  not  with  my  present  object  to  enter  into  the  discus- 
sion of  these  matters. 

The  book  of  Judges  is  also  anonymous.  The  main  his- 
torical elements  of  the  book  end  with  the  biography  of  Sam- 
son, Judg.  16:  31.  Chap,  xvii — xxi  contain  an  appendix, 
showing  how  anarchy  and  licentiousness  were  introduced,  af- 
ter the  death  of  Joshua,  among  the  men  of  the  following  gene- 
ration. There  is  nothing  in  the  diction  or  style  of  the  book, 
which  would  serve  at  all  to  prove  a  late  origin.  But  such 
passages  as  those  in  Judg.  17:  6.  18:  1.  19:  1.  21:  25,  which 
attribute  certain  evils  to  the  times,  because  there  was  no  king 


§  6.    BOOKS    ANONYMOUS.  151 

in  the  land,  seem  strongly  to  savour  of  being  written  after 
there  was  some  example  of  an  efficient  and  orderly  monarchi- 
cal government. 

The  book  is  strongly  marked  with  several  peculiarities. 
Except  reference  in  the  song  of  Deborah  (5:  4,  o)  to  the  ap- 
pearance of  Jehovah  on  mount  Sinai,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
book  of  Judges  that  refers  to  the  law  of  Moses,  to  the  priest- 
hood, to  the  Levitical  rites,  nor  to  any  prophets,  excepting  in 
one  case  (7:  8),  and  the  instance  of  Deborah,  iv.  The  truth 
plainly  is,  that  the  writer  did  not  design  to  give  anything  like 
a  regular  and  connected  series  of  history,  during  the  300 
years  which  are  covered  by  the  book  of  Judges.  (De  AVette 
makes  them  above  400).  The  peculiar  sins  of  the  people, 
their  exemplary  sufferings  in  consequence  of  them,  and  the 
signal  deliverances  which  they  experienced  under  this  heroic 
leader  and  that,  occupy  the  whole  book,  with  the  exception  of 
the  appendix  before  mentioned ;  and  this  stands  in  connec- 
tion with  the  general  subject.  As  to  the  chronology  of  the 
book  itself,  I  question  if  any  regular  and  certain  series  can 
be  satisfactorily  made  out  from  it. 

The  most  natural  origin  of  such  a  book  would  be,  during  the 
prevalence  of  idolatry  in  Judah  or  in  Israel.  A  true  prophet 
would  seize  such  an  occasion  in  order  to  hold  up  to  view  past 
experiences,  as  a  warning  to  the  idolatrous  people  of  the  dan- 
ger which  they  were  encountering.  That  he  possessed  no- 
tices, probably  written  ones,  of  the  past,  seems  highly  proba- 
ble. Even  oral  tradition  would  preserve  a  knowledge  of 
many  things  related  in  the  book  of  Judges,  which  were  of  an 
extraordinary  and  wonderful  nature.  The  tone  of  piety  and 
zeal  for  the  honour  of  God,  as  manifest  in  the  book,  is  ele- 
vated and  pure.  Ritual  services  are  plainly  quite  secondary 
in  the  writer's  view.  But  idolatry,  and  oppression,  and  other 
vices  he  censures  with  unsparing  severity.  A  spirit  kindred 
to  that  of  David  and  Samuel,  must  have  animated  his  bosom. 

The  so-called  myths  ((xv&oi)  of  the  book  are  nnmerous. 
In  other  words,  (not  to  speak  with  the  neological  critics),  the 
extraordinary  and  even  miraculous  occurrences  related  in  it 


152  §  6.   HISTORY   OF   CANON. 

are  not  a  few.  The  stories  of  Gideon  and  Samson,  in 
particular,  elicit  a  tempest  of  objections  from  recent  criticism. 
Among  all,  however,  who  accuse  the  book  of  anile  attachment 
to  fables  and  myths,  I  find  none  who  go  so  far  as  Dr.  Palfrey, 
late  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theol.  Seminary 
at  Cambridge,  in  the  tone  and  manner  of  criticism.  In  his 
Academical  Lectures  (IL  p.  194  seq.),  speaking  of  Samson, 
he  says  :  "  The  character  of  Samson  is  but  a  wild  compound 
of  the  buffoon,  the  profligate,  and  the  bravo.  "With  a  sort  of 
childish  cunning,  and  such  physical  faculties  as  a  fantastic 
invention  has  ascribed  to  the  ogre,  he  is  without  a  common 
measure  of  capacity  to  provide  for  his  own  protection,  etc." 
Dr.  Palfrey,  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  has  a  great  and  un- 
conquerable aversion  to  such  freethinkers  as  Mr.  Parker,  the 
translator  of  De  Wette  on  the  Old  Testament.  Yet  I  recol- 
lect nothing  in  what  I  have  read  of  Mr.  Parker,  nothing  in 
Strauss,  nothing  in  any  of  the  neological  critics  of  Germany 
■which  I  have  consulted,  (and  they  are  not  a  few),  which  com- 
pares with  this  scornful  caricature.  Bruno  Bauer,  (whom  I 
have  not  read),  if  the  reviewers  fairly  represent  him,  may, 
under  the  maddening  influence  of  the  potions  which  he  is  re- 
ported to  love  too  well,  have  said  some  things  more  indeco- 
rous than  this.  I  would  hope,  however,  that  such  is  not  the 
case.  How  Dr.  Palfrey  can  be  so  displeased  with  Mr.  Parker 
and  his  associates  for  thorough  rejection  of  the  divine  au- 
thority of  the  Scriptures,  after  writing  such  a  passage  as  this, 
is  more  than  I  am  able  to  explain.  The  writer  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  who  classes  Samson  with  such  worthies  as 
Barak  and  Jephtha  and  David  and  Samuel  (Heb.  11:  32), 
must  have  viewed  the  character  of  Samson,  taken  as  a  whole, 
in  a  very  different  light  from  that  in  which  the  Cambridge 
Professor  has  placed  him.  Samson  was  not  without  great 
faults ;  can  it  be  proved  that  he  had  not  some  conspicuous 
virtues  ?  His  zeal  against  heathenism  and  idolatry,  at  least, 
will  not  be  called  in  question. 

The  book  of  Judges,  however,  depends  not,  for  its  credit, 
on  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Palfrey  respecting  the  chai-acter  of 


§  6.   BOOKS    ANONYMOUS.  153 

Samson.  It  was,  beyond  all  doubt,  among  those  books  which 
Christ  and  the  apostles  spoke  of  as  being  holy  Scriptures. 

The  first  and  second  books  of  Samuel  are  but  one  work, 
severed  into  two  parts.  The  ancient  Hebrews  always  reck- 
oned them  but  as  one  book  ;  and  so  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
They  contain  the  history  of  Samuel's  administration,  who  was 
the  last  of  the  Judges,  1  Sam.  i — xxv;  the  partly  contempora- 
neous history  of  Saul,  an  account  of  whose  death  terminates 
the  so-called  first  book  of  Samuel ;  while  the  second  exhibits 
the  history  of  David's  government. 

It  is  generally  conceded,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  idiom 
of  these  books,  which  indicates  with  any  certainty  a  late  ori- 
gin. In  1  Chron.  29:  29,  it  is  said,  that  •'  the  acts  of  David, 
first  and  last,  are  written  in  the  book  of  Samuel  the  seer, 
and  in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  book  of 
Gad  the  seer."  From  this  passage,  many  in  ancient  and  in 
modern  times  have  drawn  the  conclusion,  that  the  so-called 
books  of  Samuel  were  the  work  of  these  three  different  in- 
dividuals, 1  Sam.  i — xxiv.  being  from  the  hand  of  Samuel, 
and  the  rest,  (containing  history  after  his  death),  by  the  other 
prophets  just  named.  The  fact  that  David's  death  is  not 
mentioned  at  the  close  of  2  Samuel,  would  seem  to  import, 
that  these  books  were  written  before  that  event.  But  I  can 
hardly  bring  myself  to  beheve,  that  the  authorship  of  these 
books  belongs  to  three  different  persons.  Much  more  proba- 
ble does  it  seem  to  me,  that  the  author  made  use  of  the  three 
works  in  question,  in  compiling  his  book ;  while  the  concep- 
tion of  the  plan  of  the  books,  and  the  selection  and  associa- 
tion of  the  parts,  are  the  work  of  one  and  the  same  mind. 

De  Wette  ventures  to  bestow  some  faint  praise  upon  these 
books,  on  the  ground  that  they  have  so  little  of  the  mythical 
in  them,  and  little  or  nothing  of  the  ritual  and  Levitical  spirit ; 
Einl.  §  178  seq.  The  story  of  the  witch  of  Endor,  however, 
he  thinks  is  an  instance  of  "  ideal  pragmatism,"  i.  e.  a  repre- 
sentation in  which  the  author  labours  to  account  for  certain 
phenomena,  the  real  history  of  which  remains  doubtful.  The 
apparent  predictions  in  the  book,  he  says,  were  written  post 


154  §  6.    HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

eventiim.  "Withal,  too,  he  says  there  is  much  disturbance 
and  confusion  in  these  books  ;  but  still,  that  there  is  much  of 
genuine  history  in  them,  and  that  the  narrations  are  lively 
and  true  to  nature,  §  178.  The  chronology,  moreover,  he 
pronounces  to  be  imperfect  and  legendary  ;  and  he  avers,  al- 
so, that  there  are  some  contradictions.  But  Mr.  Parker,  his 
translator  and  commentator,  goes  still  further  in  his  critical 
remarks.  '  Some  passages  savor  of  anthropomorphitic  and 
mean  conceptions  of  God  ;  unworthy  actions  are  attributed  to 
him  ;  there  is  a  sacerdotal  spirit  in  the  books  ;  and  a  few  mi- 
raculous legends  are  mingled  in  the  story;'  Add.  to  §  178. 

That  different  sources  from  which  the  writer  drew,  have 
occasioned  some  appearances  of  discrepancy,  the  attentive 
critical  reader  will  not  perhaps  deny.  Let  him  compare 
1  Sam.  16:  14—23.  17:  31—40,  with  17:  55—18:  5,  and  he 
will  perceive  what  I  mean.  The  passage  in  18:  54  wears 
every  appearance  of  a  late  and  very  unskilful  interpolation* 
How  could  David  carry  the  head  of  Goliath  to  Jerusalem, 
which  came  not  into  possession  of  the  Hebrews  for  many  years 
after  this  period  ?  See  2  Sam.  5:  6  seq.  A  fair  investigation 
and  candid  judgment  of  the  books  in  question,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  will  however  remove  most  of  the  alleged  objections 
against  them.  I  except,  of  course,  those  objections  which  lie 
against  all  accounts  of  miraculous  events.  But  it  is  not  a 
man's  cnYica/ judgment  or  skill,  which  leads  him  to  make  ob- 
jections of  this  nature  ;  it  is  his  a  priori  reasonings  and  his 
theology  which  move  him  to  object  on  such  a  ground. 

At  all  events  no  doubt  can  remain,  that  these  books  were 
written  long  before  the  Babylonish  exile.  And  this  is  enough 
for  our  present  purpose. 

The  I.  and  II.  Kings  (one  book  in  two  parts)  contain  the 
history  of  the  Jewish  kings  from  the  reign  of  Solomon  down 
to  the  exile  ;  and  with  this  is  incorporated  the  history  of  the 
ten  tribes,  from  the  time  of  their  separation  down  to  that  of 
their  deportation  by  the  king  of  Assyria. 

He  Wette  allows  to  these  books  a  projihetic  origin.  He 
says  that  "  the  chief  object  aimed  at,  is  to  set  forth  the  effica- 


§  6.    BOOKS   ANONYMOUS.  155 

cy  of  the  prophets."  It  is  admitted,  that  there  is  a  uniformi- 
ty of  style  and  a  general  unity  of  design.  But  the  neologieal 
critics,  of  course,  are  full  of  objections  against  the  myths  of 
these  compositions.  Some  think  the  accounts  are  from  mere 
oral  and  traditional  sources ;  others,  that  written  documents 
were  employed  by  the  redactor  as  the  basis  of  his  work.  This 
latter  opinion  is  rendered  more  probable  by  the  fact,  that  the 
book  of  Kings  refers  by  name  to  several  other  books,  as  con- 
taining a  more  ample  account  of  particular  things,  than  that 
which  the  author  of  the  books  in  question  has  given  ;  e.  g. 
the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon,  1  Kings  11:  41 ;  the  Book 
of  the  Kings  of  Israel,  1  Kings  14:  19.  16:  o,  20,  27.  22:  39  ; 
and  the  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah,  1  K. 
15:  7.  From  the  manner  in  which  the  writer  refers  to  these, 
it  would  seem  plain  that  he  considered  them  of  the  same 
credibility  and  authenticity  as  his  own  book. 

As  to  the  tiine  in  which  the  books  before  us  were  written — 
the  close,  at  any  rate,  must  have  been  written  late  down  in 
the  exile  ;  for  2  Kings  25:  27 — 30  brings  the  history  down 
to  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin.  In 
addition  to  this,  the  remark  in  2  Kings  23:  25  respecting  Jo- 
siah,  viz.  that  "  there  was  no  king  before  him  like  to  him  .  .  . 
neither  after  him  arose  any  hke  him,"  shows,  that  when  the 
books  were  written  several  kings  after  Josiah  had  arisen.  On 
the  whole,  there  can  be  no  good  reason  to  doubt,  that  the 
compilation,  as  it  now  is,  must  have  been  made  near  the  close 
of  the  exile.  The  arguments  mainly  employed  by  De  Wette, 
however,  to  prove  this,  amount  to  nothing  in  the  view  of  any 
one  who  believes  in  the  reality  of  prophetic  foresight.  He 
says,  that  the  return  from  exile  is  mentioned  in  1  Kings  8: 
47  ;  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  in  9:  7,  8  ;  the  dispersion 
of  the  people,  in  14:  15  ;  and  the  Babylonish  exile  in  2  Kings 
20:  17.  All  these  passages,  however,  I  must  regard  as  mere- 
ly jo^-o^^e^zc  anticipations  of  the  events  in  question.  But  as 
he  rejects  everything  of  this  nature,  so  he  interprets  the  pas- 
sages just  adverted  to  as  being  written  post  eventum. 

Who  the  author  was,  is  not  known.  The  Talmud  attributes 


156  §  6.    HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

the  authorship  to  Jeremiah.  But  Jeremiah  cannot  well  be 
supposed  to  have  hved  and  been  active  in  the  prophetic  office 
in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Jehoiachin's  exile,  although 
Havernick  adopts  this  view ;  for  he  must  then  be  at  least 
some  110  years  old.  Movers  supposes,  that  Jeremiah  wrote 
an  older  book  of  Kings,  from  which  most  of  the  present  one 
was  taken ;  De  utriusque  Vet.  Jer.  Indole,  etc.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that,  whoever  was  the  author,  his  work  was 
completed  before  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile. 

The  books  of  Chronicles,  as  we  might  naturally  expect, 
have  been  more  vigorously  assailed,  than  any  other  historical 
book  of  the  Old  Testament.  De  Wette  made  his  dehut  upon 
the  stage  of  historic  criticism  by  an  attack  upon  them,  in  his 
Kritih  der  Israel.  Geschichte.  He  has  bestowed  particular  la- 
bour upon  them  in  his  Introduction,  occupying  some  ten  pages ; 
which  his  translator  and  commentator,  Mr.  Parker,  has,  with 
a  special  purpose,  spread  out  into  sixty-four  pages. 

The  contents  of  the  Chronicles  are  genealogies  and  Jewish 
history,  from  David  downward  to  the  exile.  The  history  of 
David  (1  Chron.  x — xxix.)  is  of  course  a  repetition,  in  the 
main,  of  that  in  the  books  of  Samuel,  but  diversified  particu- 
larly by  minute  accounts  of  Levitical  arrangements.  The  his- 
tory of  Solomon  occupies  2  Chron.  i — ix,  which  stands  rela- 
ted in  the  like  manner  to  that  in  1  Kings.  The  remainder 
is  the  theocratic  history  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  rarely  glancing 
at  that  of  the  ten  tribes.  It  was  evidently  the  writer's  design, 
to  make  an  appropriate  history  of  only  the  legitimate  kings 
of  Judah,  and  of  them  in  particular  as  they  stood  related  to 
matters  of  religion  and  of  the  priesthood.  He  brings  it  down 
to  the  period  of  liberation  from  exile  by  the  proclamation  of 
Cyrus ;  2  Chron.  36:  21  seq.  In  1  Chron.  3:  19—24,  is  a 
passage  of  genealogy,  which  brings  us  down  to  the  grand- 
children of  Zerubbabel,  who  was  the  leader  of  the  returning 
exiles.  If  this  passage  be  genuine,  it  will  bring  the  book 
down  to  a  period  near  that  in  which  Nehemiah  and  Malachi 
lived.  The  orthography  {scriptio  plena),  and  the  idiom 
of  these  books,  also  contribute  to  render  probable  their  very 


§  6.    BOOKS  ANONYMOUS.  157 

late  origin.  De  AYette  (§  189)  reckons  the  union  of  the 
Chronicles  with  the  Hagiography  an  evidence  of  late  origin. 
But  are  the  Psalms  shown  to  be  all  of  late  origin,  by  the 
circumstance  that  tliey  are  classed  with  the  Hagiography  ? 

The  gravest  objections  which  are  brought  against  these 
books,  are  founded  in  their  departures  from  Samuel  and 
Kings,  in  matters  of  a  historical  nature.  E.  g.  when  Joab 
numbered  the  people,  i.  e.  the  military  force,  of  Israel,  at  the 
command  of  David,  it  is  said  in  2  Sam.  24:  9,  that  there  were 
800,000  soldiers  in  Israel,  and  500,000  in  Judah  ;  while 
1  Chron.  21:  5  says  that  the  number  in  Israel  was  1,100,000, 
and  in  Judah  470,000.  In  1  Kings  24:  24,  David  is  said  to 
have  bought  of  Araunah  a  threshing-floor  and  a  pair  of  oxen 
for  sacrifice,  at  the  price  of  fifty  shekels  of  silver  ;  in  1  Chron. 
21:  25,  David  is  said  to  have  given  600  shekels  of  gold  for 
the  same.  In  2  Kings  8:  26,  Ahaziah  the  son  of  Jehoram  be- 
gins to  reign  at  the  age  of  twenty-two  ;  according  to  2  Chron. 
22:  2  he  begins  at  the  age  of  forty-two,  this  book  thus  making 
him  two  years  older  than  his  father,  who  died  at  the  age  of 
forty,  2  Chron.  21:  20.  In  1  Kings  5:  16,  the  overseers  of 
temple-work  are  said  to  be  3,300  ;  in  2  Chron.  2:  2,  they  are 
estimated  at  3,600.  In  1  Kings  15:  32,  it  is  said  that"  there 
was  war  between  Asa  and  Baasha  king  of  Israel  all  their 
days  f^  in  2  Chron.  14:  1  it  is  said,  that  under  the  same  king 
Asa  "  the  land  had  rest  ten  years  ;"  and  after  the  invasion 
by  Zerah  the  Ethiopian,  that  "  there  was  no  more  war  unto  the 
thirty -fifth  year  of  his  *  Asa's]  reign."  In  2  Chron.  14:  2,  3, 
it  is  said  of  Asa,  that  "  he  did  that  which  was  good  and  right 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord ;  for  he  took  away  the  altars  of  the 
strange  gods,  and  the  high  places,  and  brake  down  the  im- 
ages, and  cut  down  the  groves"  (comp.  6.  5)  ;  in  2  Chron.  15: 
17  it  is  said,  that  "  the  high  places  were  not  taken  away  out 
of  Israel."  Possibly  the  latter  may  mean  '  out  of  tiie  land  of  the 
ten  tribes  ;'  but  I  cannot  think  this  is  probable,  for  Asa  had  no 
control  over  that  land.  In  1  Kings  7:  15,  the  two  pillars  of 
brass  for  the  temple  are  said  to  be  eighteen  cubits  in  height ; 
14 


158  §    6.    HISTORY   OF   CANON. 

in  2  Chron.  3:  15  they  are  represented  as  thirty-five  cubits 
high  ;  and  the  like  in  some  other  cases. 

Besides  these  and  similar  discrepancies,  the  statement  of 
numbers  occasionally  wears  the  air  of  something  very  extraor- 
dinary. E.  g.  in  2  Chron.  28:  5  seq.,  which  gives  an  account 
of  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  Pekah  king  of  Israel  and  Rezin 
king  of  Syria,  it  is  stated  that  "  Pekah  slew  120,000  men  of 
Judah  in  one  day,  all  valiant  men."  In  this  connection  we 
may  also  note,  that  Ahaz  w^as  twenty  years  old  w^hen  he  be- 
gan to  reign  (2  Chron.  28:  1)  ;  that  in  the  next  year  of  his 
reign  the  invasion  of  Pekah  took  place,  in  which  (as  is  said  in 
2  Chron.  28:  7)  a  "  mighty  man  of  Ephraim  [one  of  Pekah's 
captains]  slew  Maaseiah  the  king's  so7i."  How  could  Ahaz, 
then  twenty-one  years  of  age,  have  a  son  old  enough  to  bear 
arms  ?  The  implication  seems  to  be  such  ;  and  yet  the  mean- 
ing may  simply  be,  that  Pekah's  captain  destroyed  one  of 
the  royal  progeny  (not  in  arras)  ;  and  this  is  quite  possible, 
as  marriages  often  take  place  in  the  East,  when  the  husband 
is  only  some  fifteen  or  sixteen  years  old.  In  2  Chron.  13: 17 
it  is  stated,  that  Abijah  king  of  Judah  smote  of  the  children 
of  Israel  who  were  led  on  by  Jeroboam,  "  500,000  chosen 
men,"  in  one  rencontre.  Could  the  ten  tribes  have  possibly 
furnished  such  an  army  as  this,  from  their  population  and  lim- 
its at  that  time  ?  The  army  of  Asa  with  which  he  went  out 
to  battle  against  Zerah  the  Ethiopian,  is  said  (2  Chron.  14: 
8)  to  be  "  300,000  men  out  of  Judah,  and  280,000  out  of 
Benjamin,  mighty  men  of  valour,"  i.  e.  five  hundred  and 
eighty  thousand  soldiers  from  only  the  tribes  of  Judah  and 
Benjamin.  This  would  require  the  population  of  these  tribes, 
at  that  time,  to  consist  of  two  and  a  half  or  three  millions  at 
least.  Could  one  half  of  this  number  have  been  supported  in 
the  small  tract  of  land — small  at  any  rate  as  to  fertile  land — 
within  the  borders  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  ?  1  Chron.  22:  14 
represents  David  as  having  collected  for  the  use  of  the  tem- 
ple, 100,000  talents  of  gold  and  1,000,000  talents  of  silver; 
which,  according  to  the  generally  accredited  reckoning  of 
Richard,  the  bishop  of  Peterborough,  are  equivalent,  the  gold 


§  6.    BOOKS  ANONYMOUS.  159 

to  500,000,000  pounds  sterling,  and  the  silver  to  353  millions  ; 
the  whole  sum  amounts  to  853  millions  of  pounds  sterling, 
i.  e.  about  4,265,000,000  dollars.  The  precious  metals  must 
have  been  more  plentiful  at  that  time,  than  they  ever  have 
been  since,  to  render  it  possible  for  the  king  of  a  country  some 
150  (possibly  at  that  time  some  200)  miles  in  length  and  from 
70  to  90  in  breadth,  to  have  amassed  such  an  unexampled 
sum  as  this.  The  conquests  of  David,  although  somewhat 
extensive,  were  still  limited  to  countries  not  rich  in  the  pre- 
cious metals. 

Such  are  some  of  the  difficulties  that  meet  us  in  the  books 
of  Chronicles.  But  even  these  are  not  all.  There  seems, 
at  least  at  first  view,  to  be  a  design,  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
piler of  these  books,  to  cast  into  the  shade,  or  to  keep  out  of 
view,  some  things  which  would  detract  from  the  character  of 
the  persons  who  are  concerned  with  them.  In  the  account  of 
David's  domestic  relations  (1  Chron.  14:  3),  no  mention  is 
made  of  his  concubines  ;  which  last  are  mentioned  in  2  Sam. 
5:  13.  In  2  Sam.  8:  2,  David  is  represented,  after  conquer- 
ing Moab,  as  "  measuring  with  two  lines  to  put  to  death,  and 
with  one  full  line  to  keep  alive,"  i.  e.  as  putting  to  a  violent 
death  two  thirds  of  its  inhabitants;  in  1  Chron.  18:  3,  this 
circumstance  is  altogether  omitted.  The  Chronicles  make  no 
mention  of  David's  adultery  and  murder,  in  the  matter  of 
Bathsheba  and  Uriah,  so  particularly  related  in  2  Sam.  11:  2 — 
12:  26.  Little  or  nothing  is  said  in  the  Chronicles  respecting 
David's  troubles  on  account  of  Ammon,  Absalom,  and  the  re- 
bellious Ahithophel  and  others.  Nothing  is  said  in  the  Chroni- 
cles of  Solomon's  700  wives  and  300  concubines,  nor  of  their 
causing  him  to  apostatize;  nothing  of  his  building  temples 
for  them  around  Jerusalem  to  Chemosh  and  Moloch  ;  nothing 
of  all  the  disturbances  that  ensued,  caused  by  Hadad,  Jero- 
boam, and  others  ;  all  of  which  are  so  fully  related  in  1  Kings 
xi.  In  respect  to  the  impious  and  tyrannical  Manasseh,  the 
book  of  Kings  (2  Kings  21:  16.  24:  4)  twice  mentions  his 
"  shedding  very  much  innocent  blood,  till  he  had  filled  Jeru- 
salem from  one  end  to  the  other  ;"    all  of  which  the  book  of 


160  §  G.    HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

Chronicles  omits (2  Chron.xxiii);  and  moreover,  it  gives  an  ac- 
count of  Manasseh's  penitence,  and  of  his  efforts  to  restore  the 
worship  of  tlie  true  God  (2  Chron.  24;  11 — 17),  all  of  which 
is  omitted  in  the  book  of  Kings.  Like  to  these  traits  are 
many  other  things  in  the  Chronicles  ;  and  circumstances  such 
as  these  serve  to  show  the  peculiar  texture  of  these  books. 

The  genealogies  in  1  Chron.  i — ix.  present  a  variety  of  dif- 
ficulties, being  quite  incomplete  in  many  cases,  and  apparently 
at  variance  with  some  other  portions  of  the  Scriptures  in  oth- 
ers. Indeed  it  is  very  ditficuli  to  discover  the  specific  object 
of  these  genealogies,  unless  indeed  it  was  to  show  the  descent 
of  some  leading  families  who  had  returned  from  the  exile. 

We  need  not  wonder,  under  these  circumstances,  that  those 
who  speak  so  freely  about  other  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  here  find  occasion  to  utter  much  of  disapprobation, 
and  sometimes  even  to  say  what  is  lacking  in  decorum.  E.  g. 
Mr.  Parker,  in  his  edition  of  De  Wette,  intimates  (II.  p.  294), 
that  the  historian  who  could  omit  so  many  notable  offences  of 
kings,  as  the  author  of  the  Chronicles  has  done,  "  must  write 
with  some  other  design  than  that  of  telling  the  whole  truth." 
He  even  makes  himself  merry  with  some  of  the  alleged  mis- 
takes of  the  Chronicler,  (as  he  calls  the  author).  "An  amusing 
mistake  occurs,"  says  he  (II.  p.  268),  "in  1  Chron.  11:  23, 
as  compared  with  2  Sam.  23:  21."  The  cream  of  the  jest  is, 
that  in  the  book  of  Samuel  it  is  said  of  Benaiah,  that  "  he  slew 
an  Egyptian,  a  man  of  remarkable  appearance"  (fiiJi^'^'Q  '^^x), 
while  the  passage  in  Chronicles  says,  that  "  he  slew  an  Egyp- 
tian, a  man  of  great  stature,  five  cubits  high."  Now  what  part 
of  this  it  is  which  Mr.  Parker  pronounces  amusing,  I  do  not 
readily  perceive.  I  can  easily  see  that  five  cubits  =  7i  feet, 
is  an  uncommon  height  for  a  man  ;  yet  this  is  not  without  a 
parallel,  or  rather  it  is  even  surpassed,  e.  g.  by  the  Kentucky 
giant,  in  our  own  day.  That  a  man  of  this  height  might  be 
called  a  man  of  aspect  (•^i<"|■2  UJ"^N,  for  "^li^x  is  plainly  imphed 
here),  as  the  writer  of  the  Kings  has  called  him,  in  a  military 
respect,  (which  is  what  the  passage  clearly  has  in  view),  there 
is  no  good  reason  to  deny.     The  Latin  aspectabilis  would  give 


§  6.    BOOKS    ANONYMOUS.  161 

the  exact  meaning ;  while  Mr.  Parker  has  translated  it,  re- 
spectahle  man  1  That  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles  might  choose 
to  state  with  particularity  the  height  of  the  Egyptian,  rather 
than  to  say  (as  in  the  book  of  Kings)  that  he  was  a  man  of 
aspect,  conveys  to  my  mind  no  impression  which  is  specially 
amusing.  I  cannot  even  suppose  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  the 
Chronicler,  as  to  the  import  of  ?ii<"i^  in  Kings.  I  can  only 
see,  that  one  writer  meant  to  characterize  the  Egyptian  as  a 
man  of  remarkable  appearance,  while  the  other  gives  us  the 
specific  quality  which  made  him  remarkable.  After  all,  there 
is  something  to  amuse  us  in  respect  to  this  matter ;  and  that  is, 
that  Mr.  Parker  has  translated  the  passage  which  means  as- 
pectabilis  as  if  it  meant  venerandus.  And  this  is  the  criticism, 
then,  which  looks  at  the  book  of  Chronicles  with  scorn  ! 

To  be  brief:  De  Wette  and  most  of  the  Neologists  in  criti- 
cism who  sympathize  with  him,  consider  and  treat  the  books 
of  the  Chronicles  as  a  mere  farrago  of  scraps,  made  up  partly 
from  written  records,  partly  from  tradition,  partly  by  a  su- 
perstitious reverence  for  the  priesthood  and  the  ritual  law, 
and  partly  by  the  vain-glorious  boastings  of  a  Jew  in  respect 
to  the  royal  race  of  David  and  the  tribes  which  adhered  to 
the  Davidic  dynasty.  Hence  they  give  little  credit  indeed  to 
the  testimony  of  these  books. 

The  devout  and  reverential  reader  of  the  Old  Testament, 
has,  it  must  be  confessed,  some  difficulties  of  a  serious  nature 
to  encounter,  in  regard  to  such  things  in  the  Chronicles  as 
have  been  pointed  out.  The  tyro  in  matters  of  sacred  criti- 
cism must  certainly  feel,  that  he  has  a  somewhat  formidable 
task  before  him  ;  specially  if  he  adopts  the  theory  of  plenary 
verbal  inspiration.  I  will  state  in  a  few  words  what  my  own 
impressions  are  ;  for  I  have  already  dwelt  so  long  on  these 
books,  that  I  must  not  say  much  more. 

I  cannot  well  doubt,  that  the  Chronicles  are  the  last  of  all 
the  historical  books,  possibly  with  the  exception  of  Ezra,  Ne- 
hemiah,  and  Esther.  That  they  were  written  by  some  Jew, 
for  the  use  of  the  renewed  Israelitish  Commonwealth,  and 
that  the  author  was  a  priest  or  Levite,  seem  to  me,  all  things 
14* 


162  §  6.    HISTORY  OF  CANON. 

considered,  to  be  nearly  certain.  Let  any  one  peruse  the 
prophecy  of  Malachi,  written  about  the  same  period  as  the 
Chronicles,  and  he  will  jfind  it  filled  with  grievous  complaints 
of  the  neglect  and  contempt  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  exhibited  by 
the  Jews.  The  prophet  complains  that  they  offer  the  lame, 
the  blind,  and  the  sick,  in  sacrifice  ;  that  they  have  snuffed  at 
the  offerings  to  the  Lord ;  that  they  have  robbed  God  in 
tithes  and  offerings,  besides  being  guilty  of  many  other  sins. 
It  was  not  unnatural  that  some  pious  priest,  or  Levite,  or  pro- 
phet, should  assay  to  remedy  these  evils,  by  giving  a  particu- 
lar history  of  past  well  known  and  renowned  kings,  as  to  the 
efforts  which  they  made  to  carry  the  Mosaic  institutions  into 
practice.  Hence  the  enlarged  account  of  all  David's  arrange- 
ments in  respect  to  the  ark  of  God,  the  sacrifices,  the  priests 
and  Levites,  the  singers  and  porters  of  the  temple,  and  the 
like;  1  Chron.  xv — xxvii.  The  same  is  true  in  regard  to 
Solomon,  2  Chron,  i — ix  ;  in  regard  to  Abijah,  2  Chron.  xiii ; 
Asa,  ch.  XV  ;  Jehoshaphat,  ch.  xvii.  seq.  ;  Joash,  ch.  xxiv ; 
Uzziah,  ch.  xxvi ;  Hezekiah,  ch.  xxix  seq.  ;  and  Josiah,  ch. 
xxxiv.  A  prominence  is  consequently  given  to  things  of  this 
nature,  which  is  wanting  in  the  books  of  Kings,  for  this  was  writ- 
ten earlier  and  in  different  circumstances.  The  sacred  writers 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  adapt  their  works  to  the 
wants  of  the  times  in  which  they  live.  Why  should  they  not  ? 
It  lies  then  upon  the  face  of  the  books  of  Chronicles,  that  they 
were  composed  with  special  reference  to  the  state  of  the  times, 
as  to  the  Mosaic  worship  and  rites.  This  will  account  for  a  great 
portion  of  the  differences  in  the  narrations  between  this  and  the 
books  of  Kings.  It  is  equally  plain,  that  the  history  of  the  ten 
irihGS,t\\e a7iti-Davidic government,  is  purposelyomitted.  The 
writer  found  so  little  to  his  purpose  in  the  examples  of  the 
kings  of  Israel,  with  respect  to  the  Mosaic  religion,  that  he 
chose  wholly  to  omit  them.  Moreover,  as  it  respects  the  kings 
of  Judali,  it  is  plain  that  the  writer  did  not  purpose  to  give  a 
full  history.  His  work  is  rather  what  the  Sept.  Version  names 
it,  viz.  [luQaX^iTTo^iava,  i.  e.  Supplement,  or  things  that  remain, 
that  is,  remain  to  be  recorded.     The  frame-work  of  his  history 


§  6.   BOOKS   ANONYMOUS.  163 

is  of  course  the  same  as  that  of  Judah  in  the  books  of  Kings  ; 
but  for  a  particular  purpose  he  has  given  to  it  a  different  fin- 
ishing or  costume.  It  is  no  more  true  of  Kings  and  Chroni- 
cles, that  what  one  of  them  omits  is  to  be  considered  as  fabu- 
lous or  unworthy  of  credit,  than  it  is  of  the  Gospels.  Silence 
proves  nothing,  unless  in  peculiar  cases.  There  is  even  noth- 
ing particularly  improbable,  in  all  the  accounts  which  the 
Chronicles  give  us,  of  the  arrangements  in  respect  to  religious 
matters  made  by  many  of  the  kings  of  Judah. 

With  these  considerations  in  view,  we  can  easily  account 
for  the  often  varying  narrations  in  the  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
It  ought  no  more  to  offend  us,  than  it  offends  a  believer  of  the 
Gospels,  when  he  finds  such  a  wonderful  variety  as  there  is 
in  the  style  of  John  and  of  Luke.  Beyond  this,  however, 
we  have  seen  that  there  are  apparent  contradictions  between 
the  Kings  and  Qhronicles,  and  some  apparent  inaccuracies  in 
the  latter.  We  cannot  refuse  to  acknowledge  this  ;  for  we 
see  with  our  own  eyes.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  fact,  not 
of  theological  opinion  or  theory.  Facts  which  are  presented 
to  us  in  a  record,  cannot  be  altered  by  any  doctrinal  theory 
which  we  may  devise  or  maintain. 

That  the  present  book  of  Chronicles  is  in  a  somewhat  im- 
perfect state,  I  must  regard  as  true.  Otherwise,  how  could 
Amaziah,  the  youngest  son  of  Jehoram,  be  made  two  years 
older  than  his  father?  2  Chron.  21:  5.  22:  2.  I  am  inclined 
to  believe,  that  some  of  the  excessive  numbers  of  men,  and  of 
the  astonishing  amount  of  treasures,  have  suffered  in  transcrip- 
tion, or  from  marginal  addenda.  Almost  all  the  discrepan- 
cies between  Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  almost  all  of  the 
seeming  excesses  in  statements,  have  respect  to  proper  names 
or  numbers.  These  are  plainly  the  most  liable  of  all  things 
to  error  on  the  part  of  copyists.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  the 
old  Hebrew  Mss.  designated  numbers  by  alphabetical  letters, 
as  the  later  Hebrew  does,  it  would  be  very  easy  to  make  out 
the  probability  of  error  in  transcription,  and  to  account  for  it. 
But  inasmuch  as  this,  though  often  assumed,  has  never  been 
rendered  very  probable,  we  must  content  ourselves  with  the 


164  §  5.  HISTORY  OF  CANON. 

not  improbable  supposition,  that  at  least  some  of  the  apparent 
errors  in  question  have  arisen  from  transcription  or  unskilful 
redaction.  We  cannot  prove  this,  indeed,  by  appeal  to  direct 
testimony ;  and  the  contrary  of  this,  moreover,  is  not  capable 
of  satisfactory  proof.  But  in  such  a  case  as  that  of  the  age  of 
Amaziah  just  mentioned,  it  would  be  preposterous  to  suppose 
that  the  error  came  from  the  pen  of  the  author,  for  it  would 
prove  him  to  be  destitute  of  common  sense ;  a  position  which 
the  rest  of  the  book  would  not  permit  us  to  maintain.  The 
like  to  tliis  might  be  said  of  several  other  apparent  errors  of 
these  books. 

I  regard  it  as  more  probable,  that  the  statements  in  Kings 
are  in  general  the  more  accurate  of  the  two,  when  there  is  a 
discrepancy  between  that  work  and  the  book  of  Chronicles. 
One  good  reason  is,  that  the  book  of  Kings  rarely  develops 
an  excess  in  point  of  numbers.  Internal  probability  is  there- 
fore in  its  favour. 

How  far  the  books  of  Chronicles,  in  our  Saviour's  time, 
were  identical  with  our  present  books  of  the  same  name,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  show.  That  these  books  have  in  some 
way  been  tampered  with,  or  in  some  degree  negligently  tran- 
scribed, since  that  period,  appears  to  be  not  improbable,  when 
we  look  at  the  history  of  the  Canon.  In  Josephus'  time,  the 
Chronicles  were  arranged  or  classed  with  the  other  historical 
books,  (as  we  shall  hereafter  see),  instead  of  being  where 
they  are  now,  i.  e.  at  the  close  of  the  Kethubim,  and  therefore 
at  the  end  of  the  Old  Testament.  What  else  was  done  in 
re-editing  them,  besides  changing  their  place  of  arrangement, 
we  know  not.  But  as  they  now  are,  there  are  certainly,  as 
we  have  seen  above,  several  passages  which  disagi'ee  with 
other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  some  m  hich  disagree 
with  other  parts  of  the  Chronicles  themselves. 

It  does  not  strike  me,  that  the  omissions  in  detailing  the 
sins  and  weaknesses  of  David,  Solomon,  and  others,  are  to 
be  much  accounted  of  in  the  way  of  objection  to  these  books. 
If  the  design  of  the  writer,  or  a  promise  on  his  part,  had  been 
to  give  the  lives  of  the  Jewish  kings  cotnplete,  I  see  not  how 


§  6.    BOOKS  ANONYMOUS.  165 

we  could  then  exempt  him  from  the  charge  of  having  per- 
formed his  task  in  an  unsatisfactory  way,  at  least  of  having 
left  it  very  incomplete.  But  this  is  evidently  not  his  plan. 
The  theocratic  'policy  and  efforts  of  the  Jewish  kings  are  his 
main  object.  And  so  far  as  this  is  concerned,  I  am  not  aware 
that  his  narrative  is  open  to  any  serious  and  well-grounded 
objections.  The  few  particulars  of  incongruity  that  we  have 
found,  amount  at  the  most  to  nothing  which  is  very  important. 

As  to  the  rest,  I  have  examined  the  almost  innumerable 
difficulties  and  incongruities,  suggested  by  De  Wette,  and 
presented  in  English  and  augmented  by  Mr.  Parker.  Very 
many  of  them,  I  am  fully  persuaded,  will  not  stand  the  test  of 
a  candid  critical  scrutiny.  Others  are  more  apparent  at  first 
view,  than  real.  De  AVette  has  made  capital  for  himself  out 
of  everything,  even  out  of  a  change  or  variation  in  the  diction, 
phraseology,  etc.  So  we  cannot,  or  should  not,  do  with  the 
Gospels  ;  so  we  must  not  do  with  the  book  of  Chronicles,  if 
we  mean  to  preserve  the  reputation  of  being  truly  candid  and 
liberal  minded.  I  will  only  add,  that  after  all  which  Keil  has 
said  in  his  Versuch  uher  die  Biicher  der  Chronik^  1833  ;  Dah- 
ler,  de  Lib.  Paralip.  Auctoritate,  1819  ;  and  Movers  Ueber 
die  Ghronikj  1834;  in  defence  of  the  books  in  question,  there 
is  still  need  of  some  other  labourer  in  this  field,  who  will  do 
the  work  more  thoroughly.  Haver  nick  is  reported  to  have 
performed  this  task  ;  but  it  has  not  yet  been  in  my  power  to 
examine  what  he  has  written. 

The  book  of  Ruth  has  plainly  for  its  object,  to  trace  the 
genealogy  of  David  to  a  source  which  is  honourable.  The 
probability  seems  to  be,  that  it  was  written  during  the  reign 
of  David,  or  soon  after.  The  variations  of  the  language  from 
the  usual  Hebrew  of  that  period,  are  not  remarkable  enough 
to  afford  any  ground  of  argument  for  the  late  age  of  the  book. 
The  history  which  it  gives,  belongs  to  the  period  of  the 
Judges;  as  is  expressly  stated  in  Ruth  1:  1.  Moreover,  "the 
days  when  the  Judges  ruled,"  is  spoken  of  as  a  period  already 
passed  by.  Earlier  than  the  time  of  David,  therefore,  it 
could  not  have   been  written ;  and  as  the  special  reason  for 


166  §  6.    HISTORY    OP    CANON. 

writing  it  seems  to  be,  to  do  honour  to  David  in  respect  to 
his  descent,  he  must  have  been  a  king  before  it  was  written  ; 
for  this  was  the  particular  inducement  to  do  him  honour. 
The  character  of  Boaz  and  of  Ruth  is  truly  noble  and  ingen- 
uous. It  is  easy  to  see,  moreover,  that  the  poverty  of  Ruth 
was  not  regarded  as  a  matter  of  any  reproach.  Riches,  in 
those  days,  at  least  in  the  author's  view,  constituted  no  part  of 
true  nobility.  The  whole  picture  is  a  delightful  one.  The 
simplicity,  integrity,  and  kind  feelings  of  the  principal  persons 
exhibited  by  this  book,  are  altogether  remarkable  in  any  age 
or  country.  David  had  at  least  some  ancestors  who  were 
nature's  noblemen,  if  not  decked  with  stars  and  garters. 
That  Ruth  was  a  foreigner  by  birth,  is  no  objection  to  the 
place  assigned  her.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that  she 
became  a  proselyte  to  Judaism. 

The  genealogy,  at  the  close  of  the  book,  ends  with  David. 
The  writer  of  the  Chronicles  has  made  use  of  it  in  his  gene- 
alogy, 1  Chron.  2:  11,  12.  This  shows  that  the  book  was 
extant  in  his  time,  and  that  is  sufficient  for  our  present  pur- 
pose. 

On  account  of  the  period  to  which  the  book  of  Ruth  re- 
lates, it  is  placed  in  modern  times,  and  probably  in  more  an- 
cient ones,  next  to  the  book  of  Judges ;  for  we  shall  see  in 
due  time,  that  in  the  ancient  division  of  the  Scriptures,  in  and 
before  Josephus'  age,  this  book  was  appended  to  that  of  the 
Judges.  The  Talmudic  arrangement,  which  tore  it  away 
from  this  connection  and  placed  it  among  the  Kethubim,  was 
the  result  of  si>  later  and  merely  artificial  disposition  of  the 
sacred  books. 

The  books  of  Ezka  and  Nehemiah  contain  the  history  of 
the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  Commonwealth,  after  the  exile. 
In  classifying  the  sacred  books,  they  were  usually  joined  to- 
gether, in  ancient  times,  as  one  book  in  two  parts ;  because 
they  both  have  a  relation  to  the  same  subject,  viz.  the  rees- 
tablishment  of  law  and  order,  after  the  return  from  the  exile. 
I  shall,  however,  consider  them  separately  here. 

The   various  matters  of  which  the  book  of  Ezra  treats, 


§  6.    BOOKS   ANONYMOUS.  167 

and  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  languages  which  are  employed, 
have  led  to  a  great  variety  of  opinion  among  critics,  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  book.  Chap,  i — vi.  contain  the  history  of 
the  return  of  the  first  colony  from  the  exile,  and  connect 
closely  with  the  end  of  II.  Chronicles.  The  decree  of  Cyrus 
(536  B.  C),  a  register  of  the  returning  exiles,  the  hindrances 
to  the  building  of  the  temple,  and  the  completion  of  this  work  in 
the  sixth  year  of  Darius  the  king  (515  B.  C),  form  the  first 
part  of  the  book  of  Ezra.  The  principal  Chaldee  portion 
of  the  work  comprises  4:  8 — 6:  18.  The  second  part  of 
the  book  gives  an  account  of  the  immigration  of  the  new  col- 
ony under  Ezra,  in  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes,  457  B. 
C. ;  and  of  course  about  79  years  after  the  first  company  of 
exiles  returned  under  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua.  The  decree 
of  Artaxerxes,  permitting  Ezra's  immigration  with  a  colony 
of  Jews,  is  also  written  in  Chaldee,  7:  12 — 26.  The  rest  of 
the  book  details  the  efforts  and  arrangements  of  Ezra,  in  re- 
forming the  people  and  the  priesthood. 

Evidently  the  first  portion  of  the  book  is  constituted  in 
part  by  two  documents,  different  from  the  main  narrative  of 
the  writer  of  the  book.  Chap.  ii.  is  a  register  of  those  who 
first  returned  from  exile ;  which  Nehemiah  found  in  a  docu- 
ment by  itself,  and  from  which  he  took  his  copy ;  see  Neh. 
7;  5,  and  comp.  Neh.  7:  6—73  with  Ez.  ii.  The  Chaldee 
(4:  8 — 6:  18)  seems  to  have  been  from  another  hand  than 
that  of  the  principal  author  of  the  book  in  general ;  and  not 
only  the  letter  to  Artaxerxes  written  by  the  enemies  of  the 
Jews,  and  his  answer  to  the  same  (4:  11 — 22)  are  in  Chal- 
dee, but  also  the  narrative  that  follows  on  as  far  as  6:  18.  In 
the  sequel  of  the  book,  Ezra  speaks  sometimes  in  the  first 
person,  7:  27—9:  15  ;  while  chap.  7: 1—26  and  x.  speak  of 
him  in  the  third  person. 

The  last  part  of  the  book  is  occupied  with  the  narration  of 
Ezra's  efforts  to  bring  about  a  reformation,  in  various  respects, 
among  the  Jews;  although  its  chronology  is  not  distinctly 
marked.  For  aught  that  appears,  these  efforts  might  all  have 
been  made  in  457  B.  C. ;  for  Ezra  came  to  Jerusalem  in  the 


168  §  6.   HISTORY   OP    CANON. 

fifth  month  of  that  year ;  Ez.  7:  8.  Twelve  years  after  this, 
when  Nehemiah  came  up  to  Jerusalem  from  the  Persian 
court,  we  find  Ezra  sedulously  engaged  in  the  appropriate 
duties  of  his  office  as  priest  and  scribe ;  Neh.  8:  1 — 6,  9,  13. 
But  the  history  in  the  book  of  Ezra  seems  to  comprise  only 
the  first  portion  of  these  12  years.  Whoever  wrote  the  book, 
then,  he  seems  to  have  written  it  soon  after  Ezra  had  taken 
up  his  abode  in  Jerusalem ;  for  otherwise  we  should  expect 
from  the  author  a  further  account  of  Ezra.  I  think  we  may 
set  it  down  as  nearly  certain,  that  the  book  was  written  not 
far  from  456  B.  C. 

That  Ezra  himself  wrote  7:  27 — 9:  15,  is  plain  from  the 
fact  that  he  constantly  employs  the  first  person  in  his  narra- 
tive. Whether  he  wrote  7:  1 — 11  and  10:  1 — 44,  where  the 
third  person  is  constantly  employed,  is  more  doubtful ;  and 
especially  so  from  the  circumstance,  that  in  11:  6,  it  is  said 
of  him,  that  he  was  "  a  ready  or  expert  scribe  in  the  law  of 
Moses."  It  seems  altogether  probable  to  me,  that  some  of 
Ezra's  friends,  probably  of  the  prophetic  order,  compiled  the 
book  in  question  from  the  various  documents  named  above  ; 
and  that  he  did  this,  by  prefacing  and  interweaving  remarks 
and  narrations  of  his  own.  The  book  has  every  appearance 
of  authenticity,  and  of  course  of  credibility.  No  reasonable 
doubt  can  be  critically  entertained,  of  its  being  joined  with 
the  Jewish  Canon  about  the  period  above  named. 

The  book  of  Nehemiah  purports  to  be  from  one  and  the 
same  person.  The  inscription  presents  us  with  the  following 
title  :  "  The  words  of  Nehemiah,  the  son  of  Hachaliah." 
But  the  Heb.  "^'is^  may  mean  matters,  affairs,  or  concerns, 
as  it  does  in  the  title  to  the  book  of  Chronicles.  It  may  be 
regarded  then  as  somewhat  uncertain,  so  far  as  the  inscrip- 
tion is  concerned,  whether  this  book  is  one  of  those  whose 
names  designate  the  author.  Still,  as  all  the  narration,  down 
to  chap.  7:  5,  employs  the  first  person,  so  far  it  is  plain  that 
all  comes  from  Nehemiah.  Then  follows  the  register  of  the 
names  of  those  who  came  up  with  the  first  colony  to  Jerusa- 
lem ;  plainly  a  repetition  for  substance  of  that  which  we  find 


§  6.   BOOKS  ANONYMOUS.  169 

In  Ezra  ii.  Yet  the  discrepancies  between  tlicse  two  regis- 
ters, as  to  numbers  in  particular  cases,  is  striking.  Let  the 
reader  compare  the  following  names  and  associated  numbers  in 
the  two  registers,  viz.  Arab,  Pahath-Moab,  Zattu,  Bani  (Bin- 
nui,  Neh.),  Bebai,  Azgad,  Adonikam,  Bigvai,  Adin,  Hashum. 
Bezai,  Jorah  (Hariph),  Bethlehem  and  Netophah,  Bethel 
and  Ai,  Lod  etc.,  Scnaah,  Asaph,  Shallum  etc.,  Delaiah  etc., 
— in  the  whole,  nineteen  cases  in  this  single  register,  in  which 
the  numbers  are  discrepant  in  the  two  copies  of  it.  Yet  in  Ezra 
2:  64  and  Neh.  7:  66,  the  sum  of  the  whole  is  said  to  be 
42,360 — a  signal  proof  that  the  numbers  in  one  or  in  both 
copies,  have,  in  this  case  as  in  many  others,  suffered  as  to 
accuracy  by  transcription.  The  sums  of  gold  and  silver  giv- 
en, on  the  occasion  of  colonizing,  by  the  chiefs  of  the  fathers, 
are  stated  very  diversely  in  Ezra  2:  68,  69  and  Nehemiah  7: 
70 — 73.  Some  other  and  slighter  discrepancies  occur,  in 
the  insretion  of  names  in  the  one,  which  are  omitted  in  the 
other  ;  and  some  still  shghter  in  the  mode  of  writing  and  pro- 
nouncing the  names.  The  sequel  (8:  1 — 10:  39)  seems 
plainly  to  be  from  another  hand,  and  speaks  of  Nehemiah  in 
the  third  person  as  Tirshatha  or  governor.  The  register  of 
names,  in  chap  xi,  of  those  who  Kved  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  in 
chap  xii,  of  those  priests  who  came  up  from  the  captivity  with 
Zerubbabel ;  seems  to  me  to  be  from  one  and  the  same  hand  ; 
at  all  events,  12:  31,  38,  40,  shows  that  the  writer  again  is 
Nehemiah  himself,  who  uses  the  first  person.  It  may  be, 
however,  that  the  two  registers,  in  11:  1 — 12:  26,  are  merely 
copied  by  him.  Of  the  same  tenor  is  chap,  xiii,  which  gives 
an  account,  in  the  first  person,  of  what  Nehemiah  did  after 
his  return  a  second  time  from  Persia.  His  first  journey  to  Je- 
rusalem was  in  446  B.  C,  when  he  had  obtained  liberty  of 
absence  for  twelve  years  from  Artaxerxes,  in  the  twentieth 
year  of  his  reign  ;  Neh.  5: 14.  In  the  thirty-second  year  of  the 
same  king  (434  B.  C),  Nehemiah  returned  to  Persia,  and  in 
a  few  days  obtained  leave  again  to  go  to  Jerusalem  and  pre- 
side there ;  Neh.  13:  6.  During  his  absence  there  had  been 
a  great  falling  off  among  the  Jews,  as  to  the  observance  of 
15- 


3  70  §  6.    HISTORY  OF  CANON. 

the  law  ;  and  the  book  ends  with  a  description  of  his  efforts  to 
produce  a  general  reformation. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  supposing  that  all  the 
matter  of  this  book  passed  under  the  eye  of  Nehemiah,  or 
was  compiled  by  him,  even  if  we  admit  that  other  composi- 
tions than  his  own  are  inserted.  It  amounts  therefore  to  the 
same  thing  as  his  own  composition,  so  far  as  the  credit  of  the 
book  is  concerned.  The  history  contained  in  the  book  closes 
with  434  B.  C,  or  about  that  period,  and  it  was  therefore 
probably  written  as  early  as  the  book  of  Malachi,  if  not  some- 
what before  it. 

There  is  indeed  one  serious  difficulty  in  the  genealogy  of 
the  high  priests,  12: 10,  11,  22  ;  which  is,  that  (including  Je- 
shua  who  was  of  Zerubbabel's  time,  536  B.  C),  there  are  six 
generations  registered.  Excluding  Jeshua,  however,  as  we 
should  do  in  this  case,  the  remaining  five  generations  must 
occupy  a  period  of  some  160  to  170  years,  extending  to  some 
376  or  366  years  B.  C.  i.  e.  nearly  to  the  time  when  Alexan- 
der the  Great  came  upon  the  stage  of  action.  The  Jaddua  of 
Neh.  12:  11,  22,  is  supposed  by  many  to  be  the  same  high 
priest,  who  went  out  to  meet  Alexander,  on  his  approach  to 
Jerusalem  ;  and  in  fact,  the  time  is  so  near  to  that  period,  that 
one  can  hardly  believe  that  it  is  a  different  person,  inasmuch 
as  it  may  easily  be  supposed  that  he  lived  at  that  period. 
But  I  could  not  set  down  the  composition  of  the  book  in  gen- 
eral to  so  late  a  period,  any  more  than  I  should  be  disposed, 
to  regard  the  book  of  Genesis  as  of  late  composition,  merely 
because  of  the  late  genealogy  of  the  dukes  of  Edom  in  Gen. 
xxxvi.  The  tenor  of  the  book,  and  the  time  down  to  which 
it  brings  the  narration  ;  the  fact  that  Nehemiah's  own  hand  is 
visible  in  so  much  of  it,  and  that  there  is  nothing  else  besides 
the  genealogy  in  question  which  betokens  a  later  origin — all 
combine  to  persuade  me,  that  the  protracted  genealogy  of  the 
high  priests  comes  from  a  subsequent  and  marginal  interpo- 
lation, or  from  something  of  the  like  kind,  at  a  later  period. 
Why  should  a  later  writer  not  have  continued  the  history  of 
Nehemiah  down  to  the  time  of  his  death  ?  It  is  against  all 
probability,  that  he  would  not  have  done  so. 


§  6.    BOOKS   ANONYMOUS.  171 

One  book  remains,  viz.  that  of  Esther.  Of  this  book 
De  Wette,  in  his  usual  manner,  says  :  "  It  violates  all  his- 
torical probability,  and  contains  the  most  striking  difficulties, 
and  many  errors  in  regard  to  Persian  manners,"  §  198.  a. 
One  of  the  main  difficulties  is,  that  there  are  no  certain  data 
in  the  book,  by  which  we  can  settle  its  chronology,  or  (in  oth- 
er words)  that  determine  which  of  the  Persian  kings  was 
called  Ahasuerus  by  the  writer.  That  he  could  not  have 
lived  before  the  time  of  Darius  Hystaspis  seems  to  be  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  it  was  not  until  his  reign  that  the  Persian 
empire  was  extended  from  India  to  Ethiopia ;  to  which  the 
statement  in  Esth.  1:  1  alludes.  That  Darius  himself  was  not 
the  Persian  king,  who  issued  such  an  edict  against  the  Jews 
as  that  described  b}^  this  book,  seems  probable  from  his  char- 
acter as  known  in  history,  and  from  his  very  favorable  regard 
for  the  Jews,  as  developed  in  Ezra  5:  6.  6:  15. 

The  objections  raised  against  the  book  are  various,  and 
some  of  them,  as  the  text  of  it  now  stands,  not  easily  dis- 
posed of.  "(1)  Ahasuerus  gives  to  all  of  his  high  officers  a  feast 
of  half  a  year  ;  how  could  they  leave  their  provinces  for  so 
long  a  time  ?  (2)  His  command  to  Vashti,  the  queen,  to  ap- 
pear unveiled  before  the  whole  company,  at  a  drinking  bout, 
is  incredible.  (3)  That  Esther  is  of  Jewish  descent  seems 
entirely  unknown  to  Ahasuerus,  until  after  the  time  when 
Haman's  bloody  decree  was  sanctioned  ;  and  still  Mordecai  is 
represented  as  a  daily  attendant  at  the  court,  in  order  to  car- 
ry on  some  correspondence  with  Esther.  (4)  Haman  himself 
is  a  foreigner  ;  and  such  could  not  be  prime  ministers.  (5) 
Mordecai  obstinately  refuses  all  courteous  respect  for  him. 
(6)  Haman  designs  to  destroy  a  whole  nation  of  some  two 
millions  of  people,  and  this  merely  because  of  an  aflfront  from 
Mordecai.  (7)  He  offers  the  king  10,000  talents  of  silver  to 
sign  the  decree,  which  is  equal  to  about  17,650,000  dollars ; 
a  thing  incredible,"  etc. 

I  cannot  enter  into  any  discussion  here  of  these  and  the  like 
objections  to  the  book ;  most  of  which  Eichhorn  (§  509  seq.) 
has  satisfactorily  answered-     In  the  sequel  this  subject  will 


172  §  6.    HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

receive  more  attention.  I  merely  observe  here  that  there  are 
two  or  three  circumstances  related  by  the  book,  which  one 
finds  it  difficult  to  explain  in  a  satisfactory  manner.  The  de- 
cree of  Haman  for  the  destruction  of  the  Jews  was  issued  on 
the  thirteenth  day  of  the  first  month  in  the  year  (Esth.  3:  12), 
and  this  decree  is  not  to  be  executed  until  the  thirteenth  day 
of  the  twelfth  month;  Esth.  o:  13.  It  would  seem  that  Ha- 
man betook  himself  to  the  lot,  in  order  to  fix  upon  the  proper 
day ;  Esth.  3:  7.  The  difficulty  in  this  case  is,  to  account 
for  it  that  Haman  should  advertise  the  whole  empire  of  the 
massacre,  eleven  months  before  it  was  to  be  perpetrated. 
''What  could  be  the  use,"  it  is  asked,  "of  putting  the  Jews 
on  their  guard  so  long  beforehand  ?  The  Sicilian  Vespers 
and  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  were  not  conducted  thus  ; 
and  Haman  must  have  been  as  weak  as  he  was  wicked,  to  do 
this."  One  might  suggest  in  answer  to  this,  that  Haman 
probably  indulged  the  hope,  that  the  Jews,  through  fear,  would 
exile  themselves  from  the  kingdom.  Perhaps  this  may  be 
representing  him  as  more  humane  than  he  was  ;  but  even  a 
murderous  tyrant  must  be  supposed  to  be  apprehensive  of 
trouble,  from  destroying  a  whole  nation  that  amounted  to 
several  millions  of  men,  and  above  all,  when  he  had  given  the 
intended  victims  nearly  a  year's  notice  of  what  he  was  about 
to  do.  If  the  decrees  of  the  Persian  monarch  had  not  been 
irreversible,  I  should  be  quite  disposed  to  believe  that  the 
whole  measure,  on  the  part  of  Haman,  was  designed  mainly 
to  terrify  and  vex  the  Jews.  But  the  true  solution  seems  plainly 
to  be,  that  Haman  having  cast  lots  for  a  lucky  day,  could  not 
change  it  when  it  was  once  fixed  by  the  lot.  Superstition 
did  not  permit  a  change. 

The  decree  which  Mordecai  obtained  from  the  king, 
amounted  to  merely  a  license  that  the  Jews  should  arm  them- 
selves on  the  massacre-day,  and  make  defence  against  any 
assailants.  It  is  said  in  the  book  before  us,  that  when  the  day 
came,  the  higher  officers  of  the  king  befriended  the  Jews 
(Esth.  9:  3)  ;  which  is  not  improbable,  considering  that  Mor- 
decai was  prime  minister.     According  to  the  narration  in 


§  6.    BOOKS    ANONYMOUS.  173 

Esther,  the  Jews,  on  that  day,  destroyed  500  men  in  the 
palace  itself  at  Shushan  (Esth.  9:  6),  and  75,000  in  the  pro- 
vinces; Esth.  9:  16.  On  the  fourteenth  day  of  Adar  (the 
twelfth  month),  they  also  slew  300  more  in  the  palace  ;  Esth. 
9:  18.  Yet  in  all  these  rencounters,  we  have  no  information 
that  a  single  Jew  lost  his  life,  or  was  even  wounded.  Could 
a  massacre  of  75,000  Persians  take  place,  without  any  mu- 
tual slaughter  ?  And  would  it  be  necessary  for  the  Jews  to 
destroy  so  many,  when  the  people  of  the  empire  at  large  seem 
to  have  been  so  favourably  disposed  toward  them,  as  the  book 
represents  them  to  be  ?  It  would  seem,  moreover,  that 
"  many  of  the  people  of  the  land  became  Jews,"  while  Mor- 
decai  was  prime  minister  or  grand  Vizier  (Esth.  8:  17)  ; 
a  circumstance,  moreover,  not  at  all  improbable,  considering 
the  influence  which  Mordecai  had  at  court.  But  that  75,000 
Persians  were  slaughtered  in  this  rencounter,  after  eleven 
months'  warning  and  preparation  of  the  parties,  and  none  of 
the  Jews  destroyed,  (the  book  does  not  assert  the  latter,  but 
some  have  supposed  it  to  be  implied),  is  one  of  those  facts 
which  can  only  with  difficulty  be  admitted,  unless  some  mi- 
raculous interposition  on  the  part  of  heaven  should  prevent 
the  harming  of  the  Jews.  But  of  this  the  writer  has  taken  no 
notice. 

Some  other  difficulties  press  upon  the  book.  There  is  not 
even  once  the  name  of  God  to  be  found  in  it,  or  any  special 
recognition  of  his  holy  providence  in  the  whole  affiiir.  This  is 
altogether  the  more  singular,  inasmuch  as  it  has  no  parallel 
in  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  unless  in  the  book  of  Can- 
ticles. All  the  other  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews  represent 
God  not  only  as  the  theoretical,  but  as  the  practical,  Sovereign 
of  the  universe,  dispensing  both  good  and  ill,  prosperity  and 
adversity.  Not  so  apptu'cntly  with  the  book  of  Esther.  Even 
the  days  of  Purim,  set  apart  in  commemoration  of  the  deliv- 
erance of  the  Jews,  as  related  in  the  book,  are  to  be  kept  as 
"  days  of  feasting  and  joy,  and  of  sending  portions  one  to  an- 
other, and  of  gifts  to  the  poor  ;"  Esth.  9:  22.  This  narration, 
omitting  as  it  does  all  reference  to  an  overruling  providence, 

15* 


174  §  6.   HISTORY    OF    CANON. 

shows  how  transibrmed  as  to  his  style  of  thinking  and  writing 
the  writer  had  become,  by  Uving  in  a  foreign  country  ;  (for  I 
take  the  author  to  be  a  foreign  Jew).  The  fasting  and  weep- 
ing (ch.  iv.)  betoken,  indeed,  a  sense  of  religious  dependence  ; 
and  in  4:  14  there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  promises  of 
preserving  the  Jewish  nation,  let  the  danger  be  what  it  might. 
But  whatever  the  writer's  reasons  were  for  a  uniform  silence 
on  the  subject  of  religion  and  of  divine  interposition,  he  has 
not  given  them  to  us.  It  is  certainly  with  no  small  difficulty, 
that  we  can  make  out  reasons  satisfactory  to  our  own  minds. 
On  the  supposition  that  Xerxes  was  the  Ahasuerus  named 
in  the  book  of  Esther,  there  is  still  further  difficulty.  That  the 
same  Xerxes,  who  scourged  the  sea  for  carrying  away  his 
bridge  over  the  Hellespont ;  who  ordered  the  heads  of  the 
builders  of  the  bridge  to  be  cut  off,  because  their  structure 
could  not  resist  the  irresistible  tide  and  storm  in  the  straits 
there  ;  who  slew  the  eldest  son  of  his  friend  and  generous 
benefactor,  Pythias,  before  his  eyes,  because  he  asked  for  his 
release  from  the  army  of  Xerxes  in  which  he  had  five  sons  ; 
who  suspended  the  headless  body  of  Leonidas  on  a  cross,  be- 
cause that  with  a  mere  handful  of  Grecians  he  had  withstood 
many  myriads  of  Persians  ;  who  offered  by  proclamation  a 
great  reward  to  any  one  who  would  invent  a  new  pleasure ; — 
that  such  a  man  should  sanction  such  a  decree  as  that  of  Ha- 
man,  is  to  be  sure  not  very  strange.  But  if,  with  the  great 
mass  of  modern  and  recent  critics  we  admit  Ahasuerus  to 
have  been  Xerxes,  what  shall  we  do  with  Esth.  2:  5 — 7,  which 
tells  us  that  Mordecai  was  carried  away  captive  from  Judea 
with  Jehoiachin,  in  599  B.  C,  and  that  Esther  was  his  cousin  ? 
Now  Xerxes  did  not  begin  his  reign  until  485  B.  C,  and  the 
third  year  of  that  reign,  when  Yashti  the  queen  was  rejected, 
must  bring  Mordecai  to  the  age  of  117,  even  if  his  exile  took 
place  in  his  infancy.  His  cousin  Esther,  moreover,  must  at 
this  time  have  been  nearly  a  century  old  ;  while  the  book  of 
Esther  represents  her  as  a  young  maiden.  How  then  can  we 
admit,  with  Scaliger,  Drusius,  Carpzov,  Eichhorn,  Jahn,  Ber- 
tholdt,  Gesenius,  Havernick,  Baumgarten,  and  others,  that 


§  G.    BOOKS    ANONYMOUS.  175 

Xerxes  is  the  Ahasuerus  of  the  book  of  Esther  ?  If  we  go 
back  to  Carabyses,  and  even  to  Cyrus,  we  shall,  after  all,  still 
find  Mordecai  to  be  some  seventy  to  sixty  years  old — an  age 
hardly  congruous  with  the  part  which  he  acts  in  the  book 
before  us.  If  we  go  still  further  back,  we  must  seek  for 
Ahasuerus  among  the  separate  kings  of  Media  or  of  Persia. 
But  we  are  forbidden  to  go  back,  for  then  we  could  find  nei- 
ther the  127  provinces  of  the  empire  (Esth.  1:  1),  nor  were 
the  Jews  under  the  dominion  of  any  Persian  or  Median  king, 
before  the  time  of  Cyrus. 

All  these  difficulties,  however,  are  the  result  of  interpreting 
the  text  in  Esth.  2:  5 — 7,  in  such  a  way  as  seems,  at  first 
view,  to  be  the  most  natural  and  facile.  The  Hebrew  runs 
thus  :  "  There  was  a  Jew  in  Shushan  the  palace,  and  his 
name  was  Mordecai,  the  son  of  Jair,  the  son  of  Shimei,  the 
son  of  Kish,  a  Benjamite,  Who  was  carried  captive  from  Je- 
rusalem with  the  company  of  captives  who  were  carried  into 
exile  with  Jechoniah  king  of  Judah,  who  was  carried  away 
captive  by  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon.  And  he 
brought  up  Hadassah,  (the  same  is  Esther),  who  was  the 
daughter  of  his  uncle,"  etc.  The  question  which  we  may 
naturally  raise,  is,  whether  Mordecai  is  asserted  by  this  text 
to  be  among  the  exiles  that  accompanied  Jechoniah  (599  B. 
C),  or  whether  this  exile  is  affirmed  of  Kish  the  Benjamite, 
The  interpretation  which  adopts  the  former  meaning,  is  per- 
haps the  most  facile  and  natural,  in  case  there  is  no  obstacle 
in  the  way  ;  but  plainly  it  is  not  a  necCvSsary  one.  The  who 
(I'iJx),  at  the  beginning  of  v.  6,  may  refer  to  the  noun  imme- 
diately antecedent  (Kish),  and  then  we  are  at  liberty  to  place 
the  period  of  Mordecai  just  where  the  genealogy  demands. 
The  time,  reckoned  from  tiie  exile  of  Jechoniah  in  599  B. 
C.  to  the  seventh  year  of  Xerxes,  is  about  120  years ;  and 
this  would  correspond  riglit  well  with  the  four  generations 
mentioned  in  Esth.  2:  5.  Why  then  are  we  not  at  hberty  to 
adopt  this  exegesis  ?  I  would  not  do  so  merely  in  order  to 
avoid  a  difficulty  ;  for  we  cannot  satisfy  our  own  minds  in 
that  way.     But  the  Hebrew  is  fairly  open  to  either  construe- 


176  §  6.   HISTORY  OF  CANON. 

tion  ;  and  when  the  question  comes  up  :  Which  shall  we  pre- 
fer ?  what  hinders  our  adopting  that  which  best  agrees  with 
the  time  and  circumstances  presented  in  the  book  ?  Even  if 
the  book  of  Esther  be  supposititious,  it  is  still  a  book  belonging 
to  the  period  that  soon  followed  the  return  from  exile,  and  its 
anonymous  author  can  scarcely  be  supposed  to  have  made 
Mordecai  and  Esther  contemporary  with  Jechoniah's  exile, 
and  at  the  same  time  with  the  seventh  year  oT  Xerxes  reign, 
or  indeed  with  the  reign  of  any  Persian  prince  from  the  time 
that  Cyrus  began  to  be  sole  regent  of  Middle  Asia.  The 
parachronism  is  too  palpable  to  be  attributed  to  any  one,  who 
could  write  as  the  author  of  the  book  of  Esther  has  done. 

Some  of  the  most  serious  difficulties,  then,  are  removed  by 
the  interpretation  which  I  have  now  suggested.  In  respect 
to  the  early  publication  of  Haman's  decree,  commanding  the 
excision  of  the  Jews,  I  have  already  made  some  suggestions. 
And  as  to  the  passivetiess  of  the  Persians  when  the  day  of 
slaughter  arrives,  and  the  nmnhers  said  to  be  slain  by  the 
Jews,  while  they  apparently  remained  unhurt ;  there  may  be 
facts,  unknown  to  us,  which  would  render  these  matters  alto- 
gether credible.  Clearly  there  is  nothing  impossible  in  the 
case.  But  it  is  better  to  confess  our  ignorance,  than  merely 
to  guess  at  a  ground  of  explanation,  and  then  proffer  it  as 
something  substantial. 

The  reader  will  perceive,  that  I  have  dwelt  much  longer 
upon  the  books  of  Chronicles  and  that  of  Esther,  than  on  the 
other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  I  have  done  so  because 
I  deemed  it  to  be  necessary.  Few  readers  investigate  diffi- 
culties of  such  a  nature  as  these  books  bring  to  view ;  and 
when  they  are  brought  forward  by  those  who  doubt  or  deny 
the  claims  of  the  Old  Testament  to  authenticity  and  genuine- 
ness, most  readers  feel  astounded  by  them.  In  presenting 
these  and  the  like  matters  to  the  reader,  I  hope  to  satisfy  his 
mind,  that  my  object  is  not  to  carry  a  point  per  fas  aut  nefas. 
Truth  needs  no  pious  fraud  to  support  and  commend  it.  If 
the  Bible  is  indeed  the  word  of  God,  it  certainly  does  not  shun 
investigation,  but  demands  it.     The  example  of  the  noble 


§  6.   BOOKS    ANONYMOUS.  177 

Bereans,  who  searched  the  Scriptures  daily  in  order  to  as- 
certain whether  what  an  apostle  had  preached  was  true  or 
not,  is  one  which  is  commended  in  the  word  of  God,  and 
worthy  to  be  commended  to  all  who  reverence  his  word. 
Much  as  my  own  mind  has  been  sometimes  rendered  anxious 
by  critical  doubts  and  difficulties  thrust  upon  it,  yet  I  have 
never  for  a  moment  deemed  it  best  to  conceal  these  difficul- 
ties, or  to  look  away  from  them  merely  to  get  rid  of  the  trou- 
ble of  studying  and  examining.  On  the  same  ground  I  do 
not  think  it  expedient  merely  to  glance  at  difficulties,  suffi- 
ciently to  show  that  one  is  not  altogether  ignorant  of  them, 
and  then  to  dispose  of  them  by  a  general  condemnation  of 
everything  which  approaches  minute  or  doubting  inquiry. 
It  may  be  dexterous  management  in  a  pleader  before  a  court 
and  jury,  to  conceal  the  weak  parts  of  his  cause,  and  to  keep 
out  of  sight  whatever  can  be  said  against  his  client's  interest  ; 
but  how  long  will  the  same  jury  continue  to  confide  in  such  a 
pleader's  declarations,  or  in  his  management  of  causes,  if  he 
is  wont  to  do  this  ?  If  we,  who  profess  to  believe  in  the  di- 
vine authority  of  the  O.  Test.  Scriptures,  decline  to  examine 
and  consider  the  difficulties  which  attend  a  minute  and  criti- 
cal inquiry  into  their  condition  and  contents,  how  can  we  ex- 
pect to  convince  those  who  differ  from  us  and  reject  them  ? 
I  do  not  indeed  think  it  to  be  the  dictate  of  prudence  and 
sound  judgment,  to  anticipate  the  time  and  circumstances  in 
which  we  live,  and  publish  to  the  world  doubts  and  difficulties 
that  have  not  yet  come  before  the  minds  of  the  community 
who  surround  us.  But  when  they  do  come,  it  is  not  sound 
policy  to  aim  at  winking  them  out  of  sight,  nor  to  treat  them 
as  altogether  unworthy  of  notice,  specially  when  they  are 
apparently  founded  upon  what  the  sacred  text  itself  seems  to 
disclose.  But  doubts  and  difficulties  have  already  been  pub- 
lished to  our  religious  community,  by  the  works  of  De  Wette 
and  of  Mr.  Norton  ;  and  no  silence  on  our  part  will  help  this 
matter.  I  accede,  in  my  own  judgment,  to  what  the  celebrat- 
ed Dr.  Bellamy  of  Connecticut  used  to  say  to  his  theological 
students,  in  his  parting  Lecture :  "  Gentlemen,  on  the  sub- 


178  §  6.    HISTORY  OF  CANON. 

ject  of  polemics  I  have  one  piece  of  advice  to  give  you  ;  and 
this  is,  that  you  should  never  raise  Satan  unless  you  can  lay 
him."  But  in  the  present  case,  I  have  not  raised  him  ;  that 
has  been  the  work  of  others.  Whether  I  can  lay  him,  is  in- 
deed a  serious  question,  and  one  which  it  is  not  for  me  to 
decide. 

But  to  return  to  our  subject ;  that  the  book  of  Esther  re- 
lates a  story  which  is  substantially  trua,  there  is  no  good  reason 
to  doubt.     The  feast  of  Purim,  celebrated  as  a  memorial  of 
the  deliverance  of  the  Hebrews  from  massacre,  has  confessed- 
ly been  celebrated  among  the  Jews  ever  since  the  times  of 
the  Persian  monarchy.     Now  this  is  the  same  evidence  that 
some  signal  deliverance  took  place,  as  our  celebration  of  the 
fourth  of  July  is  evidence,  that  our  independence  as  a  nation 
was  proclaimed  on  that  day.     The  great  numbers  of  Jews  in 
Persia,  in  the  time  of  Xerxes  ;  the  hatred  which  foreigners 
have  nearly  always  borne  towards  them,  on  the  ground  of 
their  peculiar  observances  ;  and  the  envy  and  jealousy  that 
would  exist  among  the  Persian  nobility,  when  any  of  them 
were  promoted  or  treated  with  special  favour — are  all  circum- 
stances which  serve   to   show  the  possibility,  not  to  say  the 
probability,  of  the  things  related  in  the  book  of  Esther.  There 
can  be  no  good  ground  for  doubt,  that  the  book  has  truth  for 
its  basis.     But  the  number  of  Persians  slain  by  the  Jews, 
and  the  amount  of  money  promised  to  the  king  by  Haman, 
wears  an  appearance  like  to  that  which  sometimes  belongs  to 
numbers  in  the  books  of  Chronicles.    Yet  so  far  as  the  amount 
of  money  is  concerned,  it  is  not  very  difficult  to  believe  that 
Haman  may  have  promised  so  much  to  the  king,  on  the  ground 
that  he  had  liberty  to  appropriate  all  the  property  of  the  Jews, 
when  slain,  to  his  own  use  ;  Esth.  3:  11.     Nor  is  the  amount 
so  strange  a  thing.     The  prime  minister  of  the  late  emperor 
of  China,  is  said  to  have  amassed  more  than  £25,000,000 
sterling,  in  jewels,  money,  and  costly  furniture  and  array. 

For  myself,  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  si)eak  in  my  own  behalf 
on  this  occasion,  I  confess  that  the  faith  which  once  has  come 
to  admit  miraculous  events,  in  earlier  and  in  later  times,  is  not 


§  6.   BOOKS  ANONYMOUS.  l79 

seriously  staggered  by  the  extraordinary  or  even  apparently 
improbable  events  related  in  the  book  of  Esther.  To  any 
one  who  has  become  well  acquainted  with  the  history  of  Per- 
sian tyrants,  it  will  be  no  matter  of  surprise,  that  an  intoxica- 
ted Xerxes  should  order  his  queen  to  appear  unveiled  before 
a  banqueting  company,  nor  that  he  should,  in  a  like  condition, 
stimulated  by  favoritism  and  the  love  of  gain,  have  signed  the 
decree  of  Haman.  The  surprise  which  Ahasuerus  manifests, 
when  told  by  Esther  of  this  decree  (Esth.  7: 1 — 6),  wears  very 
much  the  air  of  his  having  signed  it  in  a  state  when  he  was 
unconscious  of  what  he  did.  Whoever  has  read  the  history  of 
the  late  Mohammed  Aga  Khan,  Shah  of  Persia,  will  readily 
see,  that  Persian  tyrants  who  could  sign  such  a  decree  are 
no  impossibility. 

The  most  serious  difficulty  to  a  mind  which  is  religiously 
disposed,  is  the  omission,  throughout  the'  book  of  Esther,  of 
all  mention  of  God  or  of  his  providence.  And  yet  it  seems 
to  be  plain  from  4:  14,  that  Mordecai  is  acquainted  with  and 
fully  believes  in  the  special  promises  made  in  the  O.  Test. 
Scriptures  to  the  Jewish  nation.  Nor  is  there  room  for  rea- 
sonable doubt,  that  the  writer  of  the  book  means  to  present 
the  Jews  in  the  light  of  a  people  specially  favoured  and  pro- 
tected by  heaven.  But  he  has  confined  himself  to  mere  sim- 
ple narration  of  facts,  and  does  not  undertake  to  be  argumen- 
tative or  paraenetic. 

So  far  as  the  aesthetics  of  the  book  are  concerned,  it  has  no 
small  claim  to  merit.  There  is  no  narration  so  long,  in  any 
part  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  preserves  a  unity  so  com- 
pact and  unbroken.  There  is  no  bombast,  no  affected  pomp 
of  diction.  All  must  admit,  that  the  writer  has  told  his  story 
with  much  skill,  and  made  it  such  as  to  excite  a  deep  interest 
in  the  reader.  The  impression  made  by  the  whole  is,  that 
the  Jews,  even  in  their  exile,  were  under  the  guardian  care 
of  heaven,  and  that  in  the  most  adverse  and  threatening  cir- 
cumstances, they  had  abundant  reason  to  trust  in  God.  Such 
an  impression,  moreover,  stood  intimately  connected  with  the 
Jewish  religion. 


180  §  7.    LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

There  are,  however,  some  circumstances  brought  to  view 
in  the  book,  which  at  first  sight  appear  somewhat  revolting  to 
the  feehngs  of  those  who  live  under  the  light  of  the  gospel ; 
e.  g.  Esther's  being  brought,  consentingly  as  it  would  seem, 
into  the  royal  harem  (2:  8  seq.),  and  her  vengeance  in  hang- 
ing Haman's  ten  dead  sons  upon  the  gallows  erected  for  Mor- 
decai  (9:  15).  But  are  not  these  easily  accounted  for,  by  the 
state  of  manners  and  the  low  degree  of  civilization  in  Persia? 
"We  indeed,  with  our  feelings  and  views,  cannot  praise,  nor 
even  approve  of,  anything  like  to  either  of  these  transactions  ; 
but  we  can  see,  if  we  read  the  ancient  work  before  us  in  the 
spirit  of  antiquity,  that  queen  Esther  did  nothing  which  she 
believed  to  be  wrong,  or  judged  to  be  inconsistent  with  jus- 
tice or  decorum.  The  book,  moreover,  does  not  commend 
such  things  as  those  in  question ;  it  simply  relates  them.  In 
Persia,  the  king  has  a  sovereign  right  to  any  woman  in  his 
kingdom ;  and  in  theory,  even  the  sacredness  of  the  harem 
cannot  guard  it  from  his  entrance. 

Of  the  importance  of  the  book  of  Esther,  and  also  of  some 
others  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  us  at  the  present  time,  I  in- 
tend to  say  something  hereafter.  But  for  the  present,  we 
must  dismiss  the  critical  history  of  particular  books,  in  order 
to  turn  our  attention  to  other  circumstances  important  to  the 
accomplishment  of  the  main  object  in  view. 


§  7.  Lost  books  of  the  JTehrews,  some  of  ivMch  appear  to  have 

been  canonical. 

Accordino;  to  the  views  which  have  been  taken  of  the  com- 
position  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  they 
were  all  in  existence  as  early  as  400  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era.  But  the  question  ivhe7i  the  Jewish  Canon  was  ac- 
tually completed^  has  become,  in  recent  criticism,  a  question 
of  great  importance,  and  therefore  it  must  receive  a  separate 
and  distinct  investigation.  I  must  solicit  the  reader's  atten- 
tion, for  the  present,  however,  to  some  things  necessary  in  or- 


§  7.   LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  181 

der  to  render  more  complete  our  view  of  the  ancient  Hebrew 
literature,  whether  sacred  or  common. 

The  point  cannot  be  decided  with  certainty  as  to  several 
of  the  books  alluded  to  or  quoted  in  the  Old  Testament, 
whether  they  were  considered  as  sacred,  or  not.  Some,  e.  g. 
the  worh  of  prophets,  it  seems  to  be  quite  plain,  were  re- 
garded as  sacred  and  authoritative.  Others  again,  e.  g.  Solo- 
mon's works  on  botany  and  zoology,  and  his  one  thousand  and 
five  songs  (1  Kings  4:  32,  33),  we  are  not  bound  to  regard  as 
sacred.  But  there  is  a  third  class,  the  character  of  which,  as 
we  shall  soon  see,  is  somewhat  doubtful.  My  design  is, 
briefly  to  mention  the  works  to  which  the  Old  Testament  re- 
fers, and  this  in  the  order  in  which  they  occur  to  the  reader 
of  our  English  Version. 

(1)  In  Num.  21:  14,  the  writer  appeals,  for  confirmation  of 
his  narrative,  to  the  Booh  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord.  The 
title  itself  seems  to  import,  that  the  book  was  of  a  religious 
cast,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it  was  regarded  as  sacred,  in 
the  time  of  Moses.  Still,  a  reference  might  be  made  to  it  in. 
the  manner  of  the  Pentateuchj  without  rendering  the  point  of 
its  sacredness  certain.  It  is  clear,  that  it  was  regarded  as  a 
book  of  grave  authority. 

(2)  The  Book  of  Jasher,  i.  e.  of  the  upright,  seems  to  have 
been  a  book  of  poetical  eulogies,  written  respecting  distin- 
guished men,  actors  in  distinguished  events.  The  writer  of 
Josh.  10:  12,  13,  appeals  to  it  as  confirming  his  narration 
in  respect  to  the  standing  still  of  the  sun  and  moon,  at  the 
command  of  Joshua.  Again,  it  is  appealed  to  in  2  Sam.  1: 18, 
as  exhibiting  evidence  respecting  David's  lamentations  over 
Saul  and  Jonathan.  The  credit  of  the  book  must  of  course 
have  been  good ;  for  otherwise  the  sacred  writers  had  no  in- 
ducement to  appeal  to  it.  But  whether  the  book  was  sacred 
or  canonical  at  that  time,  is  not  decided  satisfactorily  by  these 
appeals. 

(3)  When  Samuel  had  anointed  Saul  as  king,  it  is  said 
that  "  he  wrote  the  manner  of  the  kingdom  in  a  book,  and 
laid  it  up  before  the  Lord ;"  1  Sam.  10:  25.     Undoubtedly 

16 


182  §  7.    LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

this  was  autlioritative ;  but  of  the  book  itself  we  have  no  fur- 
ther notice  or  knowledge.  It  has  been  called,  The  Book  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom  ;  but  no  name  is  given  to  it 
in  Scripture. 

(3)  Solomon's  three  thousand  Proverbs,  his  thousand  and 
five  songs,  and  his  works  on  natural  history  (2  Kings  4:  32, 
33),  may  have  in  part  been  sacred.  E.  g.  the  present  book 
of  Proverbs  may  not  improbably  contain  some  of  the  3000 
which  he  spoke.  Possibly  some  of  the  songs  may  have  been 
sacred  ones ;  but  if  they  were,  we  should  naturally  suppose 
that  some  of  them  would  have  been  preserved,  with  his  name 
attached  to  them.  I  suppose  no  one  will  contend,  that  Solo- 
mon's works  on  natural  history  belonged  to  the  Canon.  If 
the  Canticles  could  be  shown  to  be  a  work  of  Solomon,  with 
any  good  degree  of  probability,  they  might  be  regarded,  per- 
haps, as  a  part  of  his  Songs.  That  no  more  of  his  poems  (if 
any)  have  been  preserved,  may  not  improbably  be  the  result 
of  that  distinction,  which  the  Jews  early  made  between  books 
of  a  sacred  nature  and  those  on  other  topics.  Yet  all-destroy- 
ing time  has  taken  from  us  not  a  few  books  once  undoubt- 
edly regarded  as  sacred. 

(4)  The  book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon  appears  to  have 
been  a  copious  history  of  his  reign  and  achievements ;  to 
which  reference  is  made  by  the  sacred  writer  in  1  Kings  11: 
41,  as  a  standard  and  authentic  work  on  this  subject. 

(5)  The  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  is 
appealed  to  in  1  Kings  14:  19.  16:  5,  20,  27.  22:  39,  as  con- 
taining copious  accounts  of  five  several  Israelitish  kings,  in 
distinction  from  those  of  Judah. 

(6)  T'he  hook  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  is 
indicated,  in  1  Kings  15:  7,  as  a  more  copious  source  of  the 
history  of  Abijam  a  king  of  Judah. 

(7)  The  acts  of  David,  first  and  last,  are  said  in  1  Chron. 
29:  29,  to  be  written  in  the  Book  of  Samuel  the  seer,  in  the 
Book  of  Nathcm  the  frojphet^  and  in  the  Book  of  Gad  the  seer. 
Such  a  king  as  David  would  naturally  have  many  biog- 
raphers.     In    this   case,   three    contemporary  prophets,   it 


§  7.    LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  183 

seems,  ^vrote  an  account  of  this  extraordinary  ruler.  Possi- 
bly our  present  book  of  Samuel  may  be  one  of  tliese,  or  a 
combination  of  more  than  one. 

(8)  A  copious  life  of  Solomon  was  also  written  by  Nathan 
the  prophet,  and  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  Iddo  the  seer. 
The  two  last  books  are  entitled,  respectively,  prophecy  and 
visions  ;  2  Chron.  9:  29. 

(9)  The  acts  of  Rehoboam  were  also  written  by  Shemaiah 
the  prophet,  and  by  Iddo  the  seer  in  a  work  concerning  ge- 
nealogies; 2  Chron.  12:  15. 

(10)  A  copious  Life  of  Uzziah  was  written  by  Isaiah  the 
son  of  Amoz  ;  2  Chron.  26:  22. 

(11)  IVie  Booh  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  appeal- 
ed to  in  2  Chron.  28:  26.  35:  27.  36:  8,  may  possibly  be 
our  present  book  of  Kings.  Yet  I  do  not  think  this  to  be 
certain. 

(12)  The  Boole  of  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  (see  1  Kings  IG: 
1,  7)  contained  the  history  of  Jehoshaphat ;  2  Chron.  20:  34. 

(13)  A  special  Life  of  HezeJdah,  written  by  Isaiah  the 
prophet,  is  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  33:  32 ;  which  is  perhaps 
that  portion  of  our  present  Isaiah  contained  in  chap,  xxxvi — 
xxxix.  Also  the  Booh  of  the  lungs  of  Israel  and  Judah  is 
mentioned  ;  which  may  be  our  present  book  of  Kings. 

(14)  The  biography  of  Manasseh,  that  wicked  king  of 
Judah,  is  said,  in  2  Chron.  S3:  18,  to  be  written  in  the  Book 
of  the  Kings  of  Israel.  The  ^tin  '^'nn'i  in  the  same  passage 
may  mean,  and  probably  does  mean,  the  words  of  Hozai  (a 
prophet)  who  spake  to  Manasseh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
What  he  said  is  also  recorded  in  the  same  book  of  Kings. 
Mr.  Parker  (I.  p.  411)  represents  these  luords  of  Hozai  as 
being  of  themselves  a  book. 

(15)  The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah  over  Josiah's  untime- 
ly death,  2  Chron.  35:  25,  seems  plainly  to  be  a  different  book 
from  that  which  we  now  have  under  the  like  title,  and  which 
says  nothing  of  Josiah. 

Besides  these,  mention  is  made  of  a  book  in  Ex.  17:  14. 
24:  7  ;  in  either  case  it  is  probably  one  of  the  compositions  of 


184  §  7.    LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

Moses,  Mliich  are  now  embodied  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  which 
reference  is  made.  In  Isa.  o-i:  16,  the  Booh  of  the  Lord 
seems  most  naturally  to  mean,  the  Scriptures  then  extant,  and 
which  reveals  the  certainty  that  wh^t  God  had  promised  he 
would  perform.  As  to  the  passages  in  Isa.  29:  11.  1  Chron. 
4:  22,  no  particular  book  is  meant,  but  a  book  in  a  genuine 
sense.  In  the  last  case,  perhaps,  no  book  at  all  is  meant,  for 
D'^P'^ln:^  t'l'nin'i  may,  and  probably  does,  mean  ancient  matters. 
From  this  brief  sketch  of  ancient  Hebrew  writings,  no 
longer  extant,  it  appears  that  many  books  containing  more 
ample  histories  of  all  the  leading  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel, 
and  more  ample  biographies  of  their  distinguished  men,  have 
perished.  It  is  in  vain  to  argue  against  this  ;  as  Hottinger 
(Thes.  Philol.  p.  534  seq.)  does,  and  many  other  strenuous 
Protestants  have  done.  Hottinger  assumes  the  position,  that 
God  in  his  providence  would  not  permit  a  canonical  hook  to 
be  lost ;  and  that  the  church,  the  faithful  depositary  of  the 
divine  records,  cannot  possibly  have  been  so  deficient  in  its 
duty,  as  to  suffer  the  loss  to  take  place.  But  w^hat  has  be- 
come of  Paul's  (really  first)  epistle  which  he  wrote  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  to  which  he  appeals  in  1  Cor.  5:  9  ?  What 
has  become  of  John's  letter  to  the  church  with  which  Diotre- 
phes  was  connected  ?  3  John  v.  9.  I  know  of  no  a  priori 
reasoning,  on  such  a  question,  that  can  satisfy  us.  The  loss 
of  a  writing  is  a  possible  thing ;  in  a  long  series  of  exile  and 
misfortune  even  a  probable  thing  ;  and  at  all  events  the 
question  concerning  it  is  one  merely  oifact.  As  such,  in  the 
present  case,  it  is  easily  decided.  Are  the  books  above 
named  now  extant  ?  If  they  are,  nothing  is  known  of  them, 
cither  among  Jews  or  Christians.  It  will  not  do  to  say,  as 
Hottinger  and  others  have  said,  that  the  very  fact  of  the  loss 
proves  that  the  books  in  question  were  never  a  part  of  the 
Jewish  Canon.  As  to  the  technical  sense  of  the  word  canon, 
it  was  introduced  only  after  the  Christian  era  had  advanced 
a  considerable  period.  But  the  main  thing  aimed  at  by  em- 
ploying this  word,  can,  as  it  seems  to  me,  be  well  predicated 
of  many,  yea  of  most,  of  the  lost  books  in  question.     What 


§  7.  LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS.         185 

were  these  books?  Propliecies,  or  proplietico-historical 
works,  the  religious  annals  of  the  Jewish  nation,  both  as  to 
historical  and  biographical  matters.  Plainly  the  writers,  as 
a  body,  were  of  the  order  of  the  prophets.  And  were  not 
books  written  by  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  Gad  the  prophet, 
and  Iddo  the  seer,  and  Isaiah  the  prophet,  and  by  others  of 
the  same  office,  counted  sacred  by  the  Hebrews?  We  can 
hardly  imagine  the  contrary.  But  if  any  one  should  hesitate 
to  acknowledge  this,  on  the  ground  that  prophets  might  write 
other  books  than  those  which  were  inspired,  still  the  manner 
of  appeal  to  the  works  in  question  which  are  now  lost,  hoth  in 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  shows  heyond  all  reasonahle  doubt  that 
they  ivere  regarded  as  authoritative  and  sacred.  For  how 
could  a  writer  remit  his  readers  for  fuller  authentic  informa- 
tion, to  those  books  which  he  did  not  regard  as  standing  on 
the  same  basis  as  his  own  work,  in  respect  to  being  worthy  of 
credit  ?  Had  we  now  those  fuller  narratives  which  are  so 
frequently  appealed  to  in  the  present  books  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles,  who  can  well  doubt  that  many  a  seeming  diffi- 
culty, in  these  abridgments  of  Jewish  history,  would  be  solved 
to  our  entire  satisfaction  ? 

I  have  called  these  last  named  works  abridgments.  In 
truth  all  the  historical  books  of  the  Hebrews  that  we  possess, 
wear  the  appearance  of  abridgments,  if  we  except  perhaps 
the  books  of  Samuel,  Ruth,  and  Esther.  It  is  impossible  to 
read,  with  a  critical  eye,  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, without  being  struck  with  the  palpable  difference  be- 
tween them  and  the  leading  historical  works  of  the  Greeks, 
Romans,  and  modern  nations  of  Europe.  As  to  chronology, 
there  is  no  general  era  to  which  all  events  are  referred,  in  or- 
der to  mark  the  time  when  they  took  place.  The  localities 
are  everywhere  supposed  to  be  within  the  knowledge  of  the 
reader,  with  the  exception  that  sometimes  the  older  and  the 
more  recent  names  of  places  are  both  given.  Then  as  to 
general  plan,  the  exhaustive  or  all-comprehensive  method  of 
modern  history  is  a  total  stranger  to  the  Scriptures.  It 
plainly  is  not  the  design  of  the  sacred  writers  to  chronicle 
16* 


186  §  7.    LOST   BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

civil  events  because  they  are  civil  events  and  relate  to  the 
civil  and  social  state  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  but  because  they 
are   events   connected   with   the   theocracy,  and  are   more 
or  less  connected  with  the   religious  developments  of  that 
nation.     The  book  of  Chronicles,   so  much  decried  of  late, 
has  above  all  others  this  aspect ;  Vv^hich  perhaps  is  one  of  the 
reasons  why  so  much  critical  displeasure  has  been  shown  to- 
ward it.     Were  it  not  that  the  name  would  sound  as  a  novel 
thing,  and  be  considered  by  some  perhaps  as  a  little  derogatory 
to  the  sacred  histories,  we  might  name  nearly  all  of  them  Anec- 
dota  Sacra,  i.  e.  brief  sketches  of  historical  events,  which  have  a 
connection  with  sacred  things.  This  is  their  character  through- 
out ;  with  perhaps  the  few  exceptions  already  named.     The 
tribunal  of  modern  historical  criticism  would  doubtless  have 
many  a  fault  to  find  with  them,  in  respect  to  historical  aes- 
thetics.    But  this  tribunal  is  one  that  has  been  erected  by 
science,  and  rhetoric,  and  the  strict  method  which  a  logical 
connection    demands.       The   Hebrew    compositions  cannot 
fairly  be  tried  by  this.     The  Hebrews  never  had  schools  of 
science,  of  rhetoric,  or  of  philosophy.     To  tlje  technical  de- 
mands of  these  they  do  not  respond.     All  their  compositions 
have  a  higher  end  in   view,  than  that  of  answering  the  de- 
mands of  science  or  philosophy.     The  all-pervading  element 
in  them  is  that  of  religion  and  morality.     To  be  eloquent,  to 
be  attractive,   to  be  graceful  or  amusing  in  narration,  seem 
never  to  have  been  objects  distinctly  before  the  minds  of  the 
Hebrew  writers.     To  record  what  concerned  the  worship  of 
God,  the  religious  state  of  his  people,  their  chastisements  and 
their  blessings,  and  not  unfrequently  what  concerned  distin- 
guished individuals  among  them  ;  to  say  or  to  sing  what  would 
make  the  people  wiser  and  better — these  are  the  objects  al- 
ways before  the  minds  of  these  peculiar  writers.     They  have 
followed  no  models  of  writing  among  other  nations.      All 
that  they   have  produced-  is  of  spontaneous    growth.      But 
is  it  not  a  vigorous  one  ?     Has  it  not  borne  much  whole- 
some fruit?      Has  science,  philosophy,  rhetoric,  the  art. of 
criticism — all  scientific  means  and  cultivation  united — ^pro- 


§  7.   LOST   BOOKS    OF   THE    HEBREWS.  187 

duced  compositions  of  more  power,  and  of  higher  perfection 
in  their  kind,  than  those  of  the  Hebrews  ?  I  know  of  none. 
I  know  of  no  narrations  that  surpass  in  interest  some  of  the 
scriptural  ones  ;  no  epics  that  make  a  deeper  impression  than 
the  book  of  Job  and  the  Apocalypse ;  no  lyrics  that  exceed 
those  of  David  and  the  sons  of  Korah ;  no  preaching,  no 
moral  painting,  more  elevated,  graphic,  sublime,  soul-stirring, 
than  that  which  can  be  found  in  the  prophets. 

In  passing  such  a  judgment  on  these  books,  I  do  not  and 
would  not  summon  them  before  the  tribunal  of  occidental  criti- 
cism. Asia  is  one  world,  Europe  and  America  another. 
Let  an  Asiatic  be  tried  before  his  own  tribunal.  To  pass 
just  sentence  upon  him  we  must  enter  into  his  feelings,  views, 
methods  of  reasoning  and  thinking,  and  place  ourselves  in  the 
midst  of  the  circumstances  which  surrounded  him.  Then  we 
must  summon  the  books  of  the  Hebrews  before  us  ;  and  if, 
on  a  fair  trial,  they  are  not  found  to  exceed,  in  the  sterling 
qualities  of  good  writing,  those  produced  by  any  other  nation, 
I  can  only  say  that  my  partiality  for  them  has  misled  me. 

In  the  mean  time,  this  matter  proffers  to  the  mind  of  a  re- 
flecting person  some  considerations  of  serious  moment.  How 
came  a  people,  who  never  had  schools  of  art,  science,  rheto- 
ric, or  philosophy,  to  write  in  such  a  manner,  and  to  attain  to 
such  excellence  ?  This  is  a  problem  for  the  Naturalists  or 
Rationalists,  who  doubt  or  deny  all  inspiration ;  a  problem 
which  they  have  not  hitherto  satisfactorily  solved  ;  one  which 
we  may,  without  any  great  degree  of  presumption,  believe 
they  will  not  be  able  to  solve. 

But  to  resume  our  present  theme  ;  it  is  not  difficult  to  ac- 
count for  the  ahridged  histories  of  the  Hebrews  being  pre- 
served, while  the  more  copious  ones,  which  have  been  brought 
to  view  above,  have  perished.  During  the  long  exile  of  the 
Jews  in  Babylonia,  they  must  have  been  in  circumstances 
very  unfavorable  to  the  cultivation  of  letters,  or  to  the  preser- 
vation of  their  former  literature,  either  sacred  or  common. 
Manuscripts  were  costly ;  the  men  who  could  copy  them,  in 
their  state  of  slavery,  must  have  been  few.     Under  such  cir- 


188       §  7.  LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

cumstances,  the  books  already  written,  being  extant  in  only  a 
few  copies,  and  these  written  upon  perishable  material,  and 
specially  the  more  copious  and  therefore  the  more  costly  books, 
might  easily  be  lost.  More  particularly  may  we  suppose  this 
to  have  been  the  case,  after  the  abridged  works  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles  were  compiled-  It  strikes  me  that  both  of  these 
works  were  mainly  compiled  during  the  exile,  for  the  very 
purpose  of  preserving,  in  a  brief  and  compact  form,  the  memo- 
rabilia  of  the  Jewish  history.  Such  abridgments  could  be 
copied,  and  purchased,  at  a  much  easier  rate  than  the  original 
and  more  ample  works  to  which  they  continually  refer.  The 
very  fact  that  references  to  ampler  sources  are  so  frequent, 
shows  the  honest  and  honajide  design  of  the  compilers.  They 
were  not  only  satisfied  themselves  that  they  composed  a  faith- 
ful narration,  but  they  were  willing  that  others  should  go  to 
the  originals  and  see  for  themselves  whether  such  was  the 
case. 

If  any  one  is  disquieted  still  with  the  idea  that  many  of 
the  original  and  more  copious  sacred  books  have  been  lost, 
he  would  perhaps  do  well  to  ask  the  question :  "  How  large 
would  the  Scriptures  now  be,  if  all  the  sacred  books  had  been 
preserved  ?  The  apostle  John,  in  apologizing  as  it  were  for 
the  briefness  of  his  narrative,  tells  us  that  he  has  omitted 
many  things  which  Jesus  said  and  did,  because  the  world  would 
not  contain  (/oo()//(7«t)  the  books  that  must  be  written,  if  all 
should  be  narrated.  I  do  not  understand  ycoQTJaai  here  in 
the  phj/s leal  sense,  i.  e.  to  afford  place  for,  to  afford  physical 
room  for,  but  in  the  tropical  sense,  viz.,  that  the  times  would 
not  bear  with  such  copiousness,  and  that  therefore  it  would  be 
inexpedient.  So  of  the  Jewish  historical  books.  We  pos- 
sess abridgments  of  them — such  as  are  worthy  of  credit.  We 
have  before  us  the  main  points  of  their  history  that  stand 
connected  with  the  development  of  religion  and  of  moral  cha- 
racter. We  possess  that  portion  of  it  which  is  adapted  to 
make  religious  impressions.  Curiosity  would  relish  more ; 
but  religious  exigency  calls  for  no  more.  The  more  copious 
histories  now  lost,  once  had  their  day  of  usefulness.     They 


§  7.   LOST  BOOKS    OF   THE    HEBREWS.  189 

were  not  written  in  vain,  for  the  ancient  people  of  God. 
But  to  make  the  Scriptures  a  volume  portable,  procurable  for 
all,  and  one  which  may  be  read  by  all,  may  have  been  one 
design  of  an  overruling  providence  in  permitting  so  many  of 
the  more  copious  books  to  perish. 

If  this  be  still  deemed  improbable  or  impossible  by  any 
one,  we  may  ask  him  to  explain  hoiv  or  why  such  errors  in  the 
book  of  Chronicles,  and  in  the  book  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
(e.  g.  in  regard  to  the  ?iumhers  in  the  register  which  they 
have  respectively  recorded,  Ez.  chap.  ii.  Neh.  chap,  vii.), 
have  been  permitted  to  creep  in  and  thus  deform  the  sacred 
text.  Why  have  heresies  been  permitted  to  come  into  the 
church  ?  Why  has  the  church  general,  and  almost  without 
exception,  been  suffered  to  wander  far  away  from  the  simple 
and  spiritual  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  to  substitute  rites  and 
forms  for  penitence  and  faith  ?  Would  it  not  be  easy  to  show 
by  a  priori  reasoning,  (at  least  as  good  as  that  employed  to 
show  that  no  sacred  books  can  have  been  lost),  that  errors  in 
the  sacred  text  or  in  the  church  cannot  be  deemed  probable 
or  even  possible  ?  Where,  it  may  be  asked,  are  the  promises 
of  God  to  his  children,  and  to  his  church  ?  What  shall  be 
said  of  his  assurance  that  he  will  teach  and  guide  them  in 
the  way  of  his  testimonies,  and  make  his  church  always  a 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  ?  These  and  the  like  ques- 
tions are  very  obvious  ones,  and  are  much  more  easily  asked 
than  answered.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  sorne,  perhaps 
many,  expect  too  much  of  a  revelation  made  in  ancient  times. 
It  must  be  absolutely  perfect,  in  all  respects,  and  moreover 
be  immutably  preserved.  And  although  they  have  read  in 
Paul's  epistles  that  "  the  Law  made  nothing  perfect,"  yet 
they  seem  not  to  recognize  the  truth  of  this  in  any  one  par- 
ticular, save  in  respect  to  Levitical  rites  and  ceremonies.  It 
is  my  belief,  that  the  gospel  has  a  high  preeminence  above 
the  Law ;  but  also,  that  the  Law  was  as  really  from  God 
as  the  gospel.  Why  should  not  the  Mosaic  institution  be 
viewed  as  being  w'hat  it  actually  was,  a  mere  introductory 
dispensation  in  respect  to  the  gospel  ?     As  such  it  had  its  time 


190  §  7.   LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 

and  place,  its  means,  its  regulations,  rites,  laws,  revelations — 
all  adapted  to  accomplisli  the  subordinate  objects  to  which 
they  had  respect.     Viewed  in  this  light,  the  institutions  of 
Moses  will  bear  a  thorough  examination.     The  fair  question 
in  respect  to  anything  belonging  to  it  always  is  :  Is  that 
thing  adapted  to  answer  the  end  proposed,  in  a  dispensation 
which  is  merely  prefatory  or  introductory  to  a  higher  and 
more  perfect  dispensation  ?     The  lost  books  of  the  Hebrews 
may  have  been  subservient  to  the  purpose  for  wiiich  they 
were  composed ;   they  doubtless  were.     But  if  heaven  had 
judged  them  to  be  essential  to  the  prosperity  and  well  being 
of  Christianity,  we  may  well  suppose  they  would  have  been 
preserved.     They  were  not  judged  to  be  necessary  ;  at  least, 
if  events  may  explain  the  designs  of  Providence,  this  would 
seem  to  have  been  the  case.     There  are  even  some  parts  of 
our  O.  Test.   Canon,  as  it  now  is,  which,  if  they  had  been 
lost,  would  not  have  changed  the  face  of  a  single  doctrine  or 
duty  of  Christianity.     Yet,   while  I  readily  accede  to  this 
view  of  our  subject,  I  should  be  far  from  saying  that  any  of 
the  books  which  we  have  are  useless.     But  on  this  part  of 
the  subject,  I  hope  to  say  something  in  the  sequel,  when  our 
investigations  shall  have  come  to  a  close. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  there  is  nothing  mysterious  in  the 
dispensations  of  Providence,  which  have  permitted  some  of 
the  sacred  books  to  perish,  and  others  to  have  been  in  some 
slight  respects  marred,  in  the  course  of  transcription.  I  am 
well  aware  that  a  perpetual  miracle  in  order  to  preserve  the 
Scriptures  has  not  unfrequently  been  assumed,  and  zealously 
maintained.  But  facts  contradict  this.  It  is  of  no  use  to 
close  our  eyes  against  these.  AVe  shall  neither  convince  our- 
selves, nor  any  one  else,  by  such  a  process.  But  if  I  reject 
the  Scriptures  as  a  revelation  from  God  on  this  account,  I 
must  reject  the  church  as  a  divine  institution  on  the  like  ac- 
count. There  is  not  a  church  on  earth,  there  never  has  been 
one,  in  which  some  of  its  members  did  not  entertain  errone- 
ous or  imperfect  views  of  some  truth  with  which  religion  has 
a  more  intimate  or  more  remote  connection.     Yet  after  all 


§  7.   LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  191 

this  is  conceded,  it  remains  a  truth,  that  there  is,  and  always 
has  been,  a  real  and  spiritual  church  on  earth,  a  spiritual 
kingdom  of  God  among  men.  There  is  nothing  which  is  de- 
pendent on  the  agency  and  management  of  erring  man,  but 
what  will  sooner  or  later,  in  one  way  or  another,  receive  some 
stain  from  the  hands  through  which  it  passes,  or  be  in  some 
respect  marred  by  human  management.  It  has  been  so 
with  Christianity  itself.  It  has  been  and  is  so  in  respect 
to  the  rational  and  moral  powers  of  man.  The  Bible,  in 
the  long  and  difficult  and  in  some  cases  even  perilous  tran- 
sition of  it  from  one  age  to  another,  has  come  to  bear  some 
traces  of  having  been  subjected  to  a  like,  i.  e.  to  human, 
care  and  management.  But  shall  it  be  urged  as  a  valid  ob- 
jection against  the  god-like  nature  of  reason,  that  men  abuse 
and  pervert  this  faculty  ?  Is  there  no  evidence  that  con- 
science is  heaven-born,  because  there  are  perverted  con- 
sciences and  seared  consciences  ?  And  by  virtue  of  a  similar 
process  of  reasoning,  we  may  also  ask  :  Does  it  follow  that  the 
Bible,  in  its  origin,  is  not  a  divine  book,  an  authoritative  book, 
because,  in  transmitting  some  parts  of  its  records  for  a  period 
of  more  than  3000  years,  and  in  transmitting  all  of  it,  even 
the  latest  books  in  the  New  Testament,  for  a  period  of  some 
1800  years,  (most  of  this  time,  be  it  remembered,  by  mere 
chirography  in  Mss.,  before  the  art  of  printing  was  known), 
some  things  of  comparatively  small  moment  have  been  dis- 
turbed, or  by  mistake  in  transcribers  and  redactors  subjected 
to  error  ?  Not  one  doctrine  is  changed  by  all  this  ;  not  one 
duty  affected  ;  not  even  the  relation  of  any  one  historic  event 
has  been  so  disturbed,  that  the  moral  impression  which  it  was 
designed  to  make  is  in  any  important  degree  subverted. 
There  is  surely  nothing  short  of  a  perpetual  miracle  which 
could  have  prevented  some  mistakes.  But  is  there  any  evi- 
dence of  such  a  miracle  ?  I  know  of  no  satisfactory  evidence,  to 
say  the  least.  I  am  well  aware  that  the  time  has  been,  when 
leading  men  in  the  Protestant  church  maintained  the  abso- 
lute inviolability  of  the  Scriptures.  The  Buxtorfs  and  men 
of  that  class,  gigantic  scholars  too  in  their  way,  did  not  scru- 


192        §  7.  LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HELREWS. 

pie  to  maintain,  that  not  only  all  the  Hebrew  letters  were  the 
same  in  all  the  Mss.  the  world  over,  but  that  even  the  vowel- 
points  and  accents  were,  and  always  had  been,  identically  the 
same  from  the  time  of  Moses  down  to  the  then  present  hour. 
Investigation  has  dissipated  this  pleasant  dream.  In  the 
Hebrew  Mss.  that  have  been  examined,  some  800,000  various 
readings  actually  occur,  as  to  the  Hebrew  consonants.  How 
many  as  to  the  vowel-points  and  accents,  no  man  knows. 
And  the  like  to  this  is  true  of  the  New  Testament.  But  at 
the  same  time  it  is  equally  true,  that  all  these  taken  together, 
do  not  change  or  materially  affect  any  important  point  of  doc- 
trine, precept,  or  even  history.  A  great  proportion,  indeed 
the  mass,  of  variations  in  Hebrew  Mss.,  when  minutely  scan- 
ned, amount  to  nothing  more  than  the  difference  in  spelling  a 
multitude  of  English  words.  What  matters  it  as  to  the  mean- 
ing, whether  one  writes  honour  or  honor,  whether  he  writes 
centre  or  center  ?  And  what  matters  it  in  Hebrew,  whether 
one  writes  Vp  or  hSp ,  'T^p  or  "np ,  T^^^'^  or  t^ib's';'  ?  Indeed  one 
may  travel  through  the  immense  desert  (so  I  can  hardly  help 
naming  it)  of  Kennicott  and  De  Rossi,  and  (if  I  may  venture 
to  speak  in  homely  phrase)  not  find  game  enough  to  be  worth 
the  hunting.  So  completely  is  this  chase  given  up  by  recent 
critics  on  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  that  a  reference  to  either 
of  these  famous  collators  of  Mss.,  who  once  created  a  great 
sensation  among  philologers  through  all  Europe  and  America, 
is  rarely  to  be  found.  So  true,  cogent,  and  applicable  to  the 
case  in  hand,  is  the  old  maxim  of  critical  jurisprudence:  De 
minimis  non  curat  lex. 

But  still,  the  ground  taken  by  most  of  the  older  Protestant 
writers,  in  regard  to  the  inviolability  of  the  sacred  text,  has 
been  shown  to  be  altogether  untenable.  Facts  contradict 
their  theory ;  and  there  is  no  arguing  against  facts. 

"Why,  moreover,  should  the  advocates  of  this  antiquated 
view  of  the  subject  before  us,  (for  there  are  not  a  few  of  them 
even  at  the  present  time,  although  they  are  rare  among  the 
more  enlightened  part  of  the  religious  community), — why 
should  they  be  so  strenuous  in  regard  to  a  thing  which  is  not 


§  7.    LOST  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS.  193 

only  disproved  by  fact,  bat  altogether  unnecessary  to  an  en- 
lightened belief  in  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  or 
to  the  well-grounded  advocacy  of  this  authority  ?  I  am  ready 
to  say,  that  their  fears  about  concession  here  are  vain ;  their 
hopes  of  convincing  others,  who  examine  critically  into  mat- 
ters of  this  kind,  are  vain  ;  and,  I  would  add,  the  confident 
expectations  of  those  who  disclaim  and  oppose  the  divine  au- 
thority of  the  Scriptures,  so  far  as  objections  of  this  nature 
are  concerned,  are  also  vain.  We  freely  yield  our  assent  to 
the  allegation,  that  in  our  present  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
there  are  some  discrepancies  between  different  portions  of 
them  which  no  learning  or  ingenuity  can  reconcile.  Huma- 
num  est  errare.  The  Bible  has  passed  through  the  hands  of 
erring  men  for  a  series  of  ages ;  and  even  the  most  sacred 
waters,  flowing  through  a  channel  that  has  some  impurities  in 
it,  must  contract  some  stain,  or  undergo  some  depreciation. 

But  what  then  ?  As  I  have  said  once  and  again,  not  a 
doctrine  is  changed,  not  a  duty  altered  or  obscured,  not  an 
important  historical  fact  perverted.  If  so,  we  have  no  special 
interest  in  labouring  with  the  Buxtorfs  and  others  to  estab- 
lish views  of  the  sacred  text,  which  are  contradicted  by  facts 
that  lie  upon  the  very  face  of  the  Scriptures.  The  honesty 
of  their  purpose,  and  even  the  warmth  of  piety  which  gave 
birth  to  it,  I  readily  acknowledge  and  approve.  But  zeal 
without  adequate  knowledge,  does  not  always  propose  the  best 
ends,  nor  choose  the  best  means  to  accomplish  those  ends. 
In  the  case  before  us,  we  may  confidently  take  the  position, 
that  their  theory,  or  at  any  rate  their  mode  of  maintaining  it,, 
is  destitute  of  solid  support.  On  the  other  hand,  when  Mr. 
Norton,  De  Wette,  or  his  translator,  and  a  large  portion  of  the 
German  critics,  assail  the  Scriptures,  particularly  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, on  the  ground  of  discrepancies  and  contradictions,  (and 
they  habitually  do  this),  we  need  not  say,  in  reply  to  them,  that 
absolutely  no  discrepancies  and  no  contradictions  exist  in  our 
present  scriptural  text ;  but  we  may  say  truly,  at  least  such 
is  the  view  which  I  feel  constrained  to  take  of  the  subject^ 
that  these  are  so  easily  accounted  for,  they  amount  in  the 

17 


194  §  8.  PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

wtiole  to  SO  few,  they  are  in  fact  of  so  little  importance,  that 
they  make  nothing  of  serious  import  against  the  claims  which 
the  matter,  the  manner,  and  the  character  of  the  Scriptures 
prefer  as  the  stable  ground  of  our  belief  and  confidence  and 
obedience.  One  thing  is  absolutely  certain.  There  is  not 
in  the  world — there  never  has  been — any  such  book  as  the 
Bible.  •  There  is  none  which  looks  to  ends  so  lofty,  so  worthy 
of  our  highest  interest  and  regard.  If  the  Bible  be  not  true, 
the  destiny  of  man  still  remains  enveloped  in  more  than 
Egyptian  night. 

§  8.  Manner  of  'preserving  tlie  sacred  Books. 

Since  the  art  of  printing  was  discovered  in  Europe,  there 
has  been  little  or  no  difficulty  as  to  the  preservation  of  valua- 
ble or  interesting  books.  Copies  being  multiplied  by  thou- 
sands at  a  time,  and  this  being  repeated  at  intervals  of  time, 
such  an  occurrence  as  the  absolute  loss  of  a  valuable  book 
has  hardly  been  possible.  It  is  difficult  for  us  who  live  amidst 
the  doings  of  the  printing-press,  of  Bible  Societies,  and  Tract 
Societies,  to  make  a  correct  estimate  of  the  state  of  the  an- 
cient Hebrews  in  regard  to  the  diffusion  and  preservation  of 
written  compositions. 

Nothing  is  clearer,  than  that  the  art  of  writing  and  even 
of  reading,  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  indeed  for  centuries  af- 
terwards, was  very  limited  among  the  Hebrews.  The  Shote- 
rim  (din::ir),  however,  a  class  of  officers  or  magistrates  among 
them,  one  must  naturally  suppose,  were  acquainted  with  the 
art  of  writing,  and  of  course  with  reading ;  for  the  verb  ^i:-^ , 
of  which  the  above  word  is  a  regular  participle,  means,  both 
in  Hebrew  and  Arabic,  to  write.  The  literal  translation  of 
•lujiu  is  scriba,  joafii^iaTeV'^,  scribe.  We  find  this  class  of  men 
among  the  people  in  Egypt,  Ex.  5:  G — 19,  and  in  the  desert, 
Num.  11:  16.  We  trace  them  down  to  the  latest  period  of 
the  Jewish  commonwealth ;  see  in  1  Chron.  23:  4.  26:  29. 
2  Chron.  19:  11.  31:  13.  We  are  not,  however,  to  under- 
stand that  this  class  of  men  were  mere  copyists  or  chiro- 


§  8.    PRESERVATION    OF   THE    SACRED    BOOKS.         195 

graphers,  but  magistrates,  probably  of  different  gradations, 
who  kept  written  records  of  the  things  which  they  transacted. 
Besides  these,  the  priests,  at  least  some  of  them,  and  proba- 
bly some  of  the  Levites,  were  acquainted  with  reading  and 
writing ;  for  being  the  jurisconsults  of  the  nation,  one  cannot 
well  divine  how  intelligent  men  among  them  would  think  of 
dischardno:  their  duties  well,  without  being  able  to  read  the 
Law  of  Moses. 

There  must  be  still  less  doubt  as  to  the  prophets  among  the 
Hebrews.  They  were  the  preachers  of  the  Mosaic  religion. 
The  office  which  they  performed  was,  as  we  have  seen  in  the 
preceding  pages,  altogether  analogous  to  that  of  ministers  of 
the  gospel.  Priests  neither  preached  nor  prayed,  i.  e.  as  public 
teachers  and  in  their  official  capacity ;  but  they  gave  advice, 
when  consulted,  as  to  matters  of  law,  of  duty,  and  of  conscience. 
Ministers  of  religion,  in  the  sense  of  being  its  public  teachers 
and  defenders,  they  were  not.  Above  all  the  men  in  the  Jew- 
ish community,  it  behooved  the  prophets  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  Mosaic  Law,  and,  from  time  to  time,  with  such  other 
Scriptures  as  were  added  to  it.  The  very  essence  of  their 
official  duty  as  preachers  of  righteousness,  consisted  in  incul- 
cating the  doctrines  which  their  sacred  books  and  their  holy 
men  had  taught. 

Still,  plain  as  all  this  seems  to  be,  there  is  no  very  definite 
and  certain  evidence,  that  priests  and  prophets  themselves 
always,  or  even  in  general,  were  actually  possessed  of  copies 
of  the  Mosaic  Law ;  and  so,  after  the  time  of  David  and 
Solomon,  in  respect  to  other  portions  of  Scripture  written 
during  their  reigns.  Had  the  Mosaic  Law  been  obeyed  by 
all  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel,  each  king  must  have  writ- 
ten out  a  copy  of  the  Law  for  himself;  for  so  Deut.  17:  18 
enjoins.  That  David,  whose  delight  was  "  to  meditate  on 
the  Law  of  the  Lord  by  day  and  by  night,"  complied  with 
this  requisition,  there  can  be  no  room  for  rational  doubt. 
Perhaps  as  little  doubt  can  be  entertained  respecting  Solo- 
mon, who,  in  the  former  part  of  his  reign,  was  much  devoted 
to  study  and  to  the  promotion  of  the  interests  of  religion. 


19G        §  8.   mESERVATION   OF   THE    SACRED   BOOKS. 

The  like  was  doubtless  done  by  other  kings,  who  were  distin- 
guished for  their  piety  and  the  spirit  of  obedience  to  the  Law. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  from  Moses  to  Samuel,  (about 
300  years),  we  scarcely  find  mention  of  a  prophet.  Only  one 
makes  a  momentary  appearance  in  the  book  of  Judges ;  Judg. 
C:  8  seq.  Almost  as  little,  also,  seems  to  be  said  concern- 
ing priests,  during  the  same  period,  as  concerning  pro- 
phets. But  from  the  time  of  Samuel  down  to  Malachi, 
there  was  a  succession  o^ prophets  in  all  probability  unbroken, 
?indi  priests  are  not  unfrequently  brought  to  view.  Were  the 
O.  Test.  Scriptures  in  their  hands  ?  Were  the  copies  of  the 
Law,  and  other  Scriptures,  as  they  arose,  so  multiplied  that 
all  who  wished  could  have  access  to  them  ? 

A  question  not  devoid  of  interest;  but  one  which  can 
scarcely  be  decided  by  any  direct  testimony  within  our  reach. 
We  can  reason  quite  conclusively  in  respect  to  the  subject,  if 
we  assume  that  all  classes  of  the  Hebrews,  the  Shoterim,  the 
priests,  the  Levites,  kings  and  other  high  officers  of  State,  did 
their  duty  in  regard  to  seeking  the  information  requisite  to 
discharge  well  and  faithfully  the  functions  of  their  office,  un- 
der the  Mosaic  constitution.  But  it  lies  upon  the  very  face  of 
the  Jewish  histoiy,  that  all  of  these  classes  of  officers  did  not 
usually  perform  the  duty  of  making  themselves  familiar  with 
the  Mosaic  institutes,  except  as  they  gathered  them  from 
common  and  traditional  report.  The  frequent  lapses  of  the 
nation  into  idolatry,  which  are  everywhere  recorded,  are  satis- 
factory proof  that  the  Hebrews  were  not  well  instructed  in  the 
Mosaic  laws,  and  that  oftentimes  the  magistrates  who  gov- 
erned them  must  have  been  ignorant  as  well  as  themselves. 
It  is  impossible  to  suppose,  with  any  degree  of  probability, 
that  the  nation  would  have  so  often  attached  themselves  to 
idol-worship,  had  the  light  of  the  then  existing  Scriptures 
been  generally  diffused  among  them.  Moses  did  not  make 
provision  for  schools,  nor  for  early  and  efficient  instruction  in 
the  Scriptures.  Hence,  when  there  were  no  prophets,  (as 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  in  the  time  of  the  Judges),  or 
afterwards  when  there  were  but  few  in  comparison  with  the 


§  8,  PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.  197 

wants  of  the  people,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  mass  of  the  na- 
tion fell  into  a  state  of  the  grossest  ignorance.  The  Mosaic 
provision  for  reading  the  Law  only  once  in  seven  years  to  the 
whole  population  (Deut.  31:  10 — 13),  could  not  possibly  be 
efficient  enough  to  prevent  this.  Besides,  in  times  of  general 
declension  from  the  spirit  of  piety,  and  above  all  in  times  of 
devotedness  to  the  worship  of  idols,  it  was  a  matter  of  course 
that  this  public  reading  should  be  neglected.  The  history  of 
circumcision,  of  the  passover,  and  of  other  public  feasts,  shows 
that  such  was  the  case  in  regard  to  these  institutions.  In  times 
of  idolatry,  the  people  would  not  be  duly  summoned  by  the 
magistracy  or  the  Levites  to  hear  the  Law ;  and  if  they  were, 
they  would  not  listen  to  the  summons.  The  very  fact  that 
Moses  provided  for  such  a  public  reading  and  ordered  it, 
shows  that  he  did  not  expect  his  written  laws  to  he  circu- 
lated in  manuscript  among  the  mass  of  the  people.  In  times 
of  alienation  from  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  when  the 
leaders  of  the  people  were  themselves  their  misleaders,  is  it 
rational  to  suppose,  that  they  would  have  subjected  themselves 
to  the  trouble  and  very  serious  expense  of  procuring  for  them- 
selves copies  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  Few  indeed  of  the  kings 
either  of  Judah  or  Israel,  (probably  none  of  the  latter),  ever 
took  pains  to  copy  the  Law  ;  at  least,  the  history  of  them 
gives  us  reason  to  believe  that  such  was  the  case. 

A  few  occasional  notices  of  arrangements  made  by  some  of 
the  pious  kings  of  Judah,  serve  to  show  that  the  statements 
just  made  are  in  all  probability  correct.  The  pious  Jeho- 
shaphat,  in  the  third  year  of  his  reign,  sent  out,  as  teaching 
missionaries  among  his  people,  some  of  the  princes,  Levites, 
and  priests,  and  they  went  round  among  all  the  cities  of  Ju- 
dah, and  carried  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  with  them  ; 
2  Chron,  17:  7 — 9.  Now  clearly  if  these  princes,  Levites, 
and  priests,  had  each  a  copy  of  the  Law,  which  was  their  own 
property,  and  if  this  were  a  common  thing  among  them,  it 
never  could  have  occurred  to  the  historian  to  make  mention 
of  such  a  circumstance.  In  giving  the  history  of  missionaries 
now,  does  any  one  ever  think  of  specifying  the  fact,  that  they 

17* 


198  §  8.    PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

carry  a  Uhle  with  them  in  their  journeys  ?  If  not,  then  does 
it  not  seem  ahogether  probable,  that  in  the  case  before  us,  the 
missionaries  were  required  to  take  the  copy  of  the  Law  from 
the  temple  where  it  was  deposited,  in  order  that  they  might 
appeal  to  it  in  all  their  public  instructions  ?  Could  other  cop- 
ies of  the  Law  have  been  accessible  among  the  Jews,  at  that 
time,  w^hen  this  copy  in  the  temple  was  permitted  to  be  taken  ? 
It  seems,  at  least,  to  be  very  improbable.  Who  should  have 
such  copies,  if  not  princes  and  Levites  and  priests  who  at- 
tended on  the  court,  and  who  were  sent  on  this  mission  ? 

In  the  great  reformation  under  Hezekiah,  we  find  an  ex- 
press recognition  of  celebrating  a  famous  passover  ''according 
to  the  law  of  Moses  "  (2  Chron.  30: 16)  ;  but  there  is  nothing 
mentioned  in  this  connection  which  would  cast  light  on  the 
subject  before  us,  excepting  the  fact,  that  many  came  to  the 
passover  unsanctified,  and  of  course  unprepared  to  celebrate  it 
in  a  legal  manner ;  2  Chron.  30: 17 — 20.  Must  not  this  have 
been  in  consequence  of  ignorance  respecting  the  Mosaic  law  ? 
It  seems  probable,  at  least ;  and  the  more  so,  inasmuch  as 
Hezekiah  admitted  them  to  the  passover,  and  prayed  the 
Lord  to  forgive  their  sin  of  ignorance,  which  prayer  was 
granted.  A  circumstance  this,  I  may  add,  which  is  replete 
with  instruction  to  those,  who  place  too  much  stress  upon  the 
rites  and  forms  and  externals  of  religion. 

In  Josiah's  time,  it  seems  nearly  certain  that  the  copies  of 
the  Law  were  reduced  to  one  ;  at  least  that  no  more  could  be 
found  or  were  accessible.  The  astonishment  of  the  king  and 
his  court,  yea  of  the  high  priest  Hilkiah  himself  who  found  a 
copy  in  the  temple,  is  such  as  to  show,  that  none  of  these  per- 
sons possessed  a  copy  of  their  own ;  2  Chron.  34: 14  seq.  We 
have  already  seen,  that  the  fifty-seven  years  of  idolatry  under 
the  reign  of  Manasseh  and  Amon  had  probably  occasioned  this 
dearth  of  copies  ;  and  also  that  the  bitter  and  bloody  persecu- 
tion of  that  time  was  probably  the  cause,  why  the  copy  had 
been  hid  which  was  found  by  Josiah.  But  be  this  as  it  may, 
it  is  clear  enough  that  the  supposition  of  a  general  circulation 
of  the  Scriptures  in  Mss.  among  the  Hebrews  before  the  ex- 


§  8.   PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.         199 

ile,  is  out  of  all  question.  It  seems  to  be  almost  equally  clear, 
moreover,  that  kings,  princes,  priests,  and  Levites,  did  not 
ordinarily  take  any  pains  to  possess  themselves  of  a  copy  of 
the  Scriptures.  Individuals  among  all  these  classes  there 
might  be,  and  more  probably  still  among  the  prophets,  and 
some  also  even  in  private  life,  who  did  possess  copies  of  the 
Law ;  I  mean  that  such  might  be,  and  occasionally  was,  in  all 
probability  the  case.  But  the  perishable  materials  on  which 
these  copies  were  written,  and  the  little  interest  that  would  be 
felt  in  them  in  times  of  deep  and  general  declension  from  the 
spirit  of  true  religion,  sufficiently  account  for  the  speedy  loss 
or  destruction  of  most  codices  once  (as  we  express  it)  in  cir- 
culation. 

That  the  fear  of  an  entire  and  utter  loss  of  the  Pentateuch, 
after  the  occurrence  already  spoken  of  in  the  time  of  Josiah, 
would  probably  lead  to  a  considerable  multiplication  of  copies, 
there  can  be  no  good  room  to  doubt.  That  the  brief  reigns  of 
Jehoahaz,  Jehoiakim,  Jehoiakin,  and  Zedekiah,  (only  some 
twenty-two  years  in  the  whole),  before  the  exile,  would  de- 
stroy all,  or  even  most,  of  these  codices,  cannot  be  deemed 
very  probable.  These  kings  did  not  persecute  in  such  a  fu- 
rious manner  as  Manasseh  had  done.  When  the  king  of 
Babylon  "  burnt  the  house  of  God,  and  all  the  palaces  thereof, 
and  slew  the  young  men  with  the  sword  in  the  house  of  the 
sanctuary,"  (2  Chron.  36:  19,  17),  it  is  not  probable  that  he 
destroyed  the  sacred  books  in  the  temple ;  for  as  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  had  sustained  a  siege  of  about  two  years'  continu- 
ance, sufficient  warning  must  have  been  given  to  priests  and 
prophets  to  take  care  of  those  books. 

The  story  in  2  Mace.  2:  1  seq.  respecting  the  part  which 
Jeremiah  acted,  when  the  temple  was  burnt,  is  very  curious ; 
and  although  mixed  with  a  spicing  of  fable,  in  all  probabihty 
has  some  truth  for  its  basis.  The  substance  of  it  is,  that 
this  prophet  took  some  of  the  holy  fire  and  the  book  of  the 
Law  and  committed  them  to  the  charge  of  some  of  the  exiles, 
with  strict  injunction  to  keep  them  safely  and  never  neglect 
them.     At  the  same  time,  (which  is  the  fabulous  part  of  the 


200  §  8.   PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

Story),  the  prophet,  moved  by  a  special  revelation,  commanded 
the  tabernacle  and  the  ark  of  the  covenant  to  follow  him  to 
mount  Sinai,  where  he  hid  them,  with  the  altar  of  incense,  in 
a  cave,  until  the  time  of  restoration  and  prosperity  should  re- 
turn. The  writer  appeals  to  anoyqacpai  and  to  yQucpTJ  as  con- 
taining this  account,  vs.  1,  4.  He  relates  moreover  what  Ne- 
hemiah  did  in  collecting  sacred  books  for  the  renewed  com- 
monwealth of  the  Jews  ;  but  this  belongs  to  a  subsequent  part 
of  our  subject.  In  respect  to  this  whole  matter,  it  seems  al- 
together probable,  that  such  a  man  as  Jeremiah,  himself  a 
priest  and  having  ready  access  to  the  temple,  would  preserve 
the  sacred  records  deposited  there,  and  secure  them  against 
destruction.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  at  least  certain,  that 
Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua  arranged  the  ritual  of  Jewish  worship 
according  to  the  Law  of  3foses,  when  they  came  up  with  the 
first  colony  of  the  returning  exiles ;  Ezra  3:  2.  Afterwards, 
when  it  is  related  that  Ezra  came  up  with  a  second  colony 
(Ez.  7: 1  seq.),  he  is  spoken  of  as  "  a  ready  scribe  in  the  Law 
of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  had  given  ;"  Ez.  7:  6. 
That  the  Law,  therefore,  and  probably  other  scriptural  books 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  i.  e.  of  the  literary  part  of  them, 
during  the  exile,  seems  quite  certain.  Private  individuals 
doubtless  possessed  some  copies ;  and  surely  such  a  man  as 
Ezra  must  have  had  it  in  his  power  to  be  a  diligent  student 
of  them,  while  he  was  yet  in  exile. 

Let  us  advert,  for  a  moment,  to  the  account  which  is  given 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  themselves,  of  the  preservation  of 
at  least  some  of  the  sacred  books,  as  they  came  from  the 
hands  of  their  authors.  In  Deut.  17:  18,  Moses  speaks  of  a 
copy  of  this  Law  in  a  book,  to  be  made  by  each  king  with 
his  own  hand,  and  then  speaks  of  that  book  as  being  before 
the  priests  the  Levites/'  i.  e.  under  their  inspection  or  guar- 
dian-ship, and  of  course  in  the  temple.  In  Deut.  31:  9,  it  is 
said  that  "  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  the 
priests  the  sons  of  Levi,"  i.  e.  he  committed  it  to  them 
for  safe  keeping.  In  Deut.  31:  2G,  Moses  is  said  to  have 
commanded  the  priests  who  bore  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  to 


§  8.   PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.  201 

"  take  the  book  of  the  Law  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,"  there  to  be  kept  as  a  permanent  witness 
against  the  Israelites,  in  case  they  should  break  the  covenant. 
It  is  not  essential  to  our  present  purpose,  whether  the  whole 
of  the  Pent,  or  of  Deuteronomy,  or  only  a  portion  of  the  latter, 
is  here  d-esignated  by  the  phrase  fi^t^  nninin  ^Sb  ;  although  no 
one  can  give  a  satisfactory  reason,  why  one  portion  of  Deuter- 
onomy should  be  so  preserved  and  not  another.  But  still,  the 
word  "^^tD  is  employed  to  designate  a  writing  which  is  complete 
in  itself,  whether  longer  or  shorter,  and  it  can  hardly  mean 
merely  extracts  from  the  Law,  or  a  certain  small  portion  of 
it.  That  there  was  a  book  in  Moses'  time,  a  record  in  which 
was  written  important  laws,  arrangements,  and  occurrences, 
and  which  was  deposited  by  the  ark,  seems  to  be  nearly  cer- 
tain from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  so  often  adverted  to ; 
e.  g.  Moses  is  commanded  (Ex.  17:  14)  to  write  an  account 
of  the  contest  with  Amalek  '^553 ,  in  the  hook  (not  in  a  book), 
and  of  course  in  some  noted  or  well  known  book ;  in  Ex.  24: 
7  it  is  said,  that  "  he  took  the  book  of  the  covenant  and  read 
in  the  audience  of  the  people,"  which  doubtless  means  the 
Laws  in  Ex.  xx — xxiv ;  in  Deut.  28:  58,  Moses  speaks  of 
the  words  of  this  Law  written  rt-rli  '^BS^ ,  lit.  in  this  here  hook" 
(which  is  the  most  exact  translation  that  we  can  make  of  the 
phrase  in  English)  ;  and  in  Deut.  28:  61,  he  speaks  of  the 
hook  of  this  law  ;  and  in  these  two  latter  cases,  what  he  says 
was  in  an  address  to  the  people.  To  be  intelligible,  he  must 
have  referred  to  a  well  known  book,  probably  to  one  which 
was  held  up  before  them  while  he  was  addressing  them. 
This  same  book,  called  the  hook  of  the  Law  in  Deut.  31:  2^, 
.was  the  one  which  Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  who  bore 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  to  take  and  put  hy  the  side,  or  at  the 
side,  or  o?i  the  side  (ia^ ,  "u  being  often  used  in  Hebrew  to  de- 
note proximate  or  dependent  localities),  of  the  ark  of  the  cov- 
enant. There  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  supposition 
that  the  book  of  the  Law,  i.  e.  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  was 
kept  in  that  place,  in  the  assertion  made  in  1  Kings  8:  9  and 
2  Chron.  5:   10,  viz.,  that  "  there  was  nothing  in  the  ark 


202  §  8.   PKESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

[when  it  was  transferred  to  the  sanctuary  of  the  newly  built 
temple],  save  the  two  tables  of  stone  which  Moses  put  there 
at  Horeb."  The  Hebrew  here  is  'ji'^XS,  in  the  ark,  which  is 
quite  a  different  phrase  from  the  li'nx  la^a ,  on  the  side  of  the 
arky  in  Deut,  31:  26  ;  although  De  Wette  in  his  Introduction 
Las  confounded  them,  and  endeavoured  to  make  some  capital 
"out  of  this  circumstance  for  his  purpose  ef  destructive  criti- 
cism. The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (9:  4)  speaks  in  the  same 
way  of  only  the  tables  of  the  covenant,  i.  e.  the  stone  tablets 
on  which  the  ten  commandments  were  engraved,  as  being  in 
the  ark;  see  Ex.  31:  18.  32:  15,  16.  34:  1,  28.  Deut.' 9:  10, 
and  particularly  10:  1 — 5.  Josephus  repeats  the  same  idea, 
Antiq.  VIII.  4.  1,  "  The  ark  contained  nothing  else  except 
the  two  tablets  of  stone,  which  preserved  the  ten  command- 
ments spoken  by  the  Lord  to  Moses,  and  written  upon  them 
at  Mount  Sinai." 

Traces  of  the  fact  that  the  Law  of  Moses  was  deposited 
in  the  sanctuary  along  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  for  safe 
keeping,  may  be  found  in  subsequent  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament.  In  Josh.  24:  26  it  is  said,  that  "  he  wrote  these 
words  [which  most  naturally  means  the  two  addresses  that  he 
made  to  the  people  near  the  close  of  his  life,  Josh,  xxiii.  xxiv.] 
in  the  book  of  the  Law  of  God ;  and  he  took  a  great  stone 
and  set  it  up  there  [as  witness  between  him  and  the  people] 
under  an  oak  that  was  by  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord ;"  in 
other  words,  he  wrote  down  his  solemn  addresses  and  joined 
them  to  the  Pentateuch  or  words  of  Moses  kept  in  the  sanc- 
tuary. 

Again,  in  1  Sam.  10:  25  it  is  said,  that  this  prophet  "  told 
the  people  the  manner  of  the  kingdom  [of  Saul],  and  wrote 
it^B3a,mi/ie  hook  f^  which  of  course  must  mean  a  well 
known  book ;  and  what  other  one  could  this  be  than  "  the 
Law  of  the  Lord,"  to  which  Joshua  had  annexed  his  admoni- 
tions ?  The  solemnity  and  importance  of  the  occasion  de- 
manded such  an  authentication  as  would  be  made  by  this  cir- 
cumstance, and  perpetuity,  moreover,  would  thus  be  secured 
to  the  written  constitution  of  the  kingdom. 


§  8.   PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.  203 

Of  course  we  are  prepared  by  occurrences  like  these,  to 
expect  what  is  related  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  time  of  Jo- 
siah,  viz.,  that  it  was  found  in  the  temple  ;  although  in  this 
case  surely  not  in  its  usual  place  by  the  side  of  the  ark.  It 
had  been  withdrawn  and  hidden  by  some  pious  hand,  to  save 
it  from  the  desolating  fury  of  Manasseh. 

Does  not,  moreover,  the  passage  in  Isa.  34: 16  refer  to  the 
holy  hihliotheca  in  the  temple,  surnamed  the  hook  of  the  Lord  ? 
After  predicting  various  evils  to  Edom,  the  prophet  says : 
*'  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  ("nss  bs;^)  of  the  Lord,  and  read ; 
no  one  of  these  shall  fail."  That  this  expression  does  not 
refer  to  what  the  prophet  had  himself  just  uttered,  Knobel 
has  clearly  shown  in  his  Commentary  on  this  book  ;  although 
RosenmiJller  and  others  have  defended  this  mode  of  inter- 
pretation. Gesenius  supposes  him  to  advert  to  a  collection 
of  sacred  hooJcs,  with  which  his  own  was  to  be  associated. 
That  he  refers  to  some  prophecy  or  predictions  in  other  and 
sacred  books,  seems  to  be  quite  certain  from  the  tenor  of  the 
passage  and  the  nature  of  the  reasoning.  But  whether  these 
books  were  a  part  of  our  present  Canon  or  not,  it  would  be 
more  difficult  to  say.  Still,  the  phrase  booh  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  certainty  of  the  writer  that  what  was  contained  therein 
would  take  place,  show  that  the  book  in  question  was  a  well 
known  and  definite  one,  and  one  also  of  sacred  authority. 
There  was  therefore,  at  the  period  when  this  was  written,  a 
collection  of  sacred  writings  ;  and  the  expression,  book  of  the 
Lord,  may  refer  either  to  the  divine  origin  of  the  book,  or  to 
the  fact  that  it  was  kept  where  God  was  supposed  to  dwell, 
viz.  in  the  inner  sanctuary.  It  is  quite  possible,  moreover, 
that  the  prophecy  referred  to,  may  be  virtually  contained  in 
the  declarations  of  Isaac  respecting  Esau  in  Gen.  27:  37  seq., 
so  that  the  Pentateuch  itself  is  the  book  of  the  Lord  to  which 
reference  is  made. 

That  what  was  done  in  ancient  times,  in  respect  to  the 
sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews,  was  done  at  a  later  period,  after 
the  second  temple  was  built,  seems  to  be  manifest  from  vari- 
ous passages  in  Josephus.     Speaking  of  Moses'  bringing  wa- 


204  §  8.   PRESERTATIO!^  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

ter  from  the  rock  (Antiq.  III.  1.  7),  he  says  :  "  That  God 
had  foretold  this  .to  Moses,  dtjloi  iv  ro)  ieqco  upay.eiut'j't]  yqa- 
Cfi],  the  Scripture  laid  up  in  the  temple  shows."  Speaking  of 
the  day  being  prolonged  during  the  battle  of  Joshua  with  the 
five  kings  (Antiq.  V.  1.  17),  he  says  :  "  This  is  shown  by  the 
writings  laid  up  in  the  temple,  dia  rav  dva'Aeifitrcov  iv  toj 
lEQoi  yQafxfidTOJV."  This  last  quotation  shows,  that  the  depo- 
sit of  books  in  the  temple  was  not  confined  to  the  Pentateuch, 
for  it  has  reference  to  the  book  of  Joshua. 

Again,  Josephus,  in  describing  the  triumphal  procession  of 
Vespasian  and  Titus  at  Rome,  when  the  Jewish  war  had  been 
completed,  says,  that  the  spoils  of  the  temple  were  made  con- 
spicuous above  all  the  other  things  carried  in  the  procession, 
and  that  "last"  [and  consequently  most  eminent]  "among 
these  spoils  was  borne  the  Law  of  the  Jews,  6  re  vo^og  6  rav 
'lovdaicov  im  rovroig  icp^QEro  roav  XaqivQGJV  teXevtaiog,^'  Bell. 
Jud.  YII.  5.  5.  Again  (§  7.  ib.  he  says,  that  Vespasian  erec- 
ted a  temple  to  Peace,  and  there  he  deposited  the  furniture 
of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  while  "  he  commanded  to  keep 
laid  up  in  the  palace  their  Law  [viz.  the  Law  of  the  Jews], 
and  the  purple  veil  of  the  temple,  zov  ds  vo^ov  avzojv  y>ai  id 
noocpvod  Tov  or^y.ov  zaTaTtETuoiyiara  nQoattoBev  ev  roTg  ^aai- 
Xeioig  dno&ejitvovg  (pv7.(i7T€iv."  I  can  scarcely  doubt  that 
in  both  of  these  cases  the  word  voiAog  (law)  comprises,  as  it 
sometimes  does  in  the  usage  of  other  writers  of  that  period, 
the  whole  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  recognized  by  Josephus 
as  such.  The  Rabbinical  use  of  rrnin  =  voi^og  in  such  a  sense, 
is  well  known  to  all  Hebrew  scholars ;  see  Buxt.  Lex.  Tal- 
mud, and  Hottinger  Thes.  Philol.  p.  94.  If  t^^'e  be  any 
doubt  of  this,  it  would  seem  to  be  dissipated  by  Josephi  Vita, 
§  75,  where  he  says,  that  Titus,  at  his  request,  "  made  him  a 
present  of  the  sacred  books,  ^i^licov  Uqojv  tla^ov  yaQiaafU' 
vov  Titov"  It  does  not  appear  with  certainty  from  the  con- 
text, whether  this  copy  of  the  Scriptures  was  one  taken  from 
the  temple  or  not ;  but  on  the  whole  this  is  the  impression 
made  upon  my  mind  by  reading  §  75  throughout  If  I 
not  in  an  error,  there  was  then,  at  that  time, 


lioufej>   ii  I  am 
DI^HffaAn  one 


§  8.   PRESERYATIOX  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.  205 

copy  of  the  sacred  books  laid  up  in  the  temple  ;  for  the  copy 
given  to  Josephus  and  retained  by  him,  must  be  different  from 
that  which  was  carried  in  procession  by  Vespasian  and  laid 
up  in  the  temple  of  Peace. 

It  would  seem  to  be  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  Jewish^ 
high  priest  and  Sanhedrim,  wdio  were  the  supreme  judges  of 
the  nation  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  religion  and  morality,, 
should  have  kept  a  copy  of  the  sacred  books  near  at  hand, 
i.  e.  near  to  the  place  where  they  usually  held  their  meetings  ; 
which  was  either  in  a  part  of  the  temple,  or  in  the  house  of 
the  high  priest  in  its  neighborhood.  If  so,  what  place  could 
be  so  appropriate  for  those  books  as  the  temple  ? 

There  is  other  evidence  also,  of  an  indirect  nature,  in  re- 
gard to  the  keeping  of  the  Scriptures,  after  the  return  of  the 
Jews  from  exile.  We  have  already  seen  (p.  81  seq.  above), 
that  synagogues,  in  which  the  Jewish  Scriptures  were  read, 
in  all  probability  originated  soon  after  that  return.  In  these 
it  would  seem,  if  we  are  to  credit  Jewish  tradition,  that  only 
the  Law  of  Moses  or  Pentateuch  was  at  first  read,  and  that 
this  custom  continued  down  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epipha- 
nes.  That  tyrant,  in  his  persecution  of  the  Jews,  compelled 
them  to  destroy  all  the  copies  of  the  Law,  which  could  be 
found ;  in  particular  he  commanded,  that  the  public  reading 
of  the  Law  of  Moses  in  the  synagogue,  on  the  sabbath,  should 
be  entirely  abolished.  The  reading  of  the  Law  in  the  Syna- 
gogues being  thus  prohibited  on  pain  of  death,  the  Jews  chose 
an  adequate  number  of  selections  or  extracts  from  the  pro- 
phetical books  of  the  Scriptures,  as  substitutes  for  them,  and 
thus  continued  their  scriptural  readings. 

Such  is  the  usual  account  given  of  the  origin  of  the  Haph- 
taroth,  or  prophetical  lections,  which  are  designated  in  the 
margin  of  all  the  better  Hebrew  Bibles.  Van  der  Hooght  has 
given  a  catalogue  of  them  at  the  close  of  his  edition  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible  ;  marked  the  corresponding  Parashoth  or  sab- 
batical lections  of  the  Pentateuch,  for  which  the  prophetical 
lections,  as  said  above,  were  substituted  ;  and  finally  pointed 
out  at  the  same  time  the  difference  in  the  prophetical  selec- 

18 


206  §  8.    PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

tions,  in  twelve  cases,  between  the  Jews  of  southern  and  those 
of  middle  and  northern  Europe.  The  tradition  about  the  ori- 
gin of  these,  as  stated  above,  is  vouched  for  and  fullj  stated 
by  Elias  Levita  (Thisbi,  ad  h.  vocera),  and  admitted  by  the 
great  mass  of  biblical  critics  ;  among  whom  are  Eichhorn  and 
Bertholdt.  The  latter  makes  defence  of  Elias.  Still  the 
story  about  the  origin  of  the  Haphtaroth  is  doubted  by  De 
Wette  (Einl.  §  80),  for  doubt  falls  in  with  his  usual  style  of 
criticism ;  but  it  is  also  called  in  question  by  Vitringa,  Vet. 
Synag.  p.  1007  seq^  and  somevdiat  doubted  by  Carpzov, 
Crit.  Sac.  p.  148.  The  ground  of  doubt  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  Haphtaroth,  is  the  lack  of  historical  testimony.  In 
1  Mace.  1:56,  57,  the  writer,  in  recounting  the  persecuting 
measures  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  says  that  "  he  burned  xa. 
^ipJa  Tov  vofAovj"  and  that  "  wherever  ^ipuov  dia\}?}x?ig  was 
found  with  any  one,  or  any  showed  pleasure  in  the  Law,  ths 
judgment  of  the  king  [Antiochus]  condemned  him  to  death." 
Carpzov  remarks  on  this,  that  the  object  of  the  tyrant  was  not 
merely  to  destroy  the  Pentateuch,  or  to  stop  the  sabbatical 
readings  in  the  Synagogue,  but  to  heathenize  the  Jews,  and  to 
prohibit  all  exercise  of  their  religion ;  and  of  course  he  must 
have  laboured  to  destroy  the  Prophets  as  well  as  the  Law. 
Josephus  in  his  narration  respecting  Antiochus,  says  that  "  he 
destroyed  all  those  with  whom  was  found  ^i^Xog  leQay.al  vo^iog" 
(Antiq.  xii.  5.  4)  ;  which  seems  to  favour  the  view  of  Carp- 
zov and  Vitringa. 

But  however  or  whatever  the  origin  or  the  occasion  of 
reading  the  Haphtaroth  on  the  sabbath  in  the  synagogue  may 
have  been,  it  matters  not  as  to  our  present  object.  In  the 
apostles'  time  the  custom  of  reading  them  was  usual,  or  rather, 
as  we  may  well  suppose,  universal  among  the  Jews.  Thus 
in  Acts  13:1 5,  "after  the  reading  of  the  Zaif?  and  the  Prophets," 
(a  frequent  designation  of  the  O.  Test.  Scriptures  in  general), 
the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  asked  Paul  and  his  companions  to 
address  the  assembly.  In  v.  27  of  the  same  chapter,  it  is 
said  of  the  persecuting  people  of  Jerusalem,  that  "they  knew 
not  the  voices  of  the  Prophets  which  are  read  every  sabbath 


§  8.   PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.         207 

e?«y."  This  puts  the  matter  beyond  a  question  as  to  the  pro- 
phetical books  being  kept  in  the  synagogues  for  use ;  and  if 
they  were  there,  they  would  of  course  be  in  the  temple.  But 
these  passages  do  not  settle  the  question,  how  long  the  prophets 
had  been  so  read.  Yet  the  apostle  James,  in  Acts  15:  21,  has 
decided  that  the  custom  of  reading  the  Scriptures  in  this  way,  at 
least  of  reading  the  Law,  was  in  his  time  quite  an  ancient  one : 
*'  For  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city  them  that  preach  him, 
being  read  in  the  synagogues  every  sabbath  day."  That  he 
names  only  Moses  here,  results  merely,  as  I  apprehend,  from 
the  nature  of  the  appeal  which  he  makes  in  the  passage.  The 
preceding  passages  which  have  just  been  quoted,  (Acts  13: 15, 
27),  show  the  exact  state  of  the  whole  matter  at  that  period. 
Now  how  long  a  period  may  be  comprised  under  the  £x  ys- 
rsdov  ciQ'/^aicov  of  James,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  with  ex- 
actness. But  that  a  period  farther  back  than  that  of  Antiochus 
(175 — 164  B.  C.)  is  meant,  seems  to  me  altogether  probable. 
I  must  therefore,  with  Vitringa  and  Carpzov,  believe  it  prob- 
able tliat  the  religious  zeal  of  tJie  Jews,  at  or  soon  after  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  gave  birth  to  the  reading  of  both 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets  in  the  synagogues. 

This  being  conceded,  or  even  so  large  a  period  as  that  which 
reaches  back  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  being  conceded,  for  the 
reading  of  the  Prophets  in  all  the  synagogues,  it  will  be  seen 
at  once  what  effectual  provision  had  been  made  for  the  pre- 
servation of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  after  the  return  from 
Babylon.  Such  an  accident  as  occurred  in  regard  to  the  Law 
of  Moses  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  was  no  longer  possible.  In 
confirmation  of  the  fact,  that  the  Prophets  were  read  in  the 
synagogues,  (James  says.  Acts  15:  21,  m  every  noXei  =  town 
or  village),  we  may  appeal  to  Luke  4:  17 — 19.  Jesus  being 
in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  is  invited  to  read  the  Scriptures, 
and  the  volume  of  Isaiah  is  given  him,  which  he  opens  at 
chap.  Ixi.  and  commences  reading  in  it.  The  suggestion  that 
he  did  this  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  i.  e.  merely  by  virtue 
of  his  own  peculiar  authority,  is  favoured  by  nothing  in  the 
n  arration  of  Luke.     On  the  contrary,  he  is  requested  to  read  ; 


208  §  8.    PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

is  directed  where,  i.  e.  in  what  book,  he  shall  read  ;  and  no 
one  expresses  any  offence  at  the  manner,  but  at  the  matter  of 
his  discourse.  I  understand  the  Evangelist  as  saying,  that 
Jesus  had  been  accustomed  to  read  in  the  synagogue,  antece- 
dently to  this  occasion  :  "  he  entered  according  to  his  custom 
into  the  synagogue  on  the  day  of  the  sabbath,  and  stood  up  to 
read ;"  where  zaza  zo  ticod^og  avzo)  may  naturally,  and  I 
doubt  not  that  it  does,  qualify  both  clauses.  If  the  action  of 
reading  had  been  an  unusual  one,  would  the  volume  of  Isaiah 
have  been  given  to  him,  and  all  in  the  synagogue  have  peace- 
ably and  attentively  waited  for  his  subsequent  discourse  ?  It 
is  true,  indeed,  thai  the  portion  of  Isaiah  which  he  read  (61: 
1,  2),  is  not  at  present  included  in  the  Haphtaroth ;  for  one 
of  them  ends  with  the  preceding  chapter.  But  this  is  not  an 
argument  of  any  weight  to  show  that  the  reading  of  the  pas- 
sage in  question  must  be  regarded  as  something  singular  or 
extraordinary  ;  for  as  the  Haphtaroth  differ  (this  we  have  seen 
above)  among  the  Jews  of  southern  and  of  northern  and  mid- 
dle Europe,  so,  in  ancient  times,  Isa.  61: 1,  2,  may  have  been 
included  in  them. 

It  follows  from  all  the  preceding  considerations,  that  the 
X»aw  and  the  Prophets  had  been  read  on  the  sabbath  day,  in 
every  town  in  Judea,  for  a  long  period,  i/,  y&veojv  (tQyuicov  ; 
and  of  course,  that  there  must  have  been  some  established 
Scriptures  from  which  the  selection  for  reading  was  made. 
The  destruction  or  even  material  change  of  the  Scriptures, 
after  such  a  custom  had  commenced,  was  put  out  of  all  ques- 
tion. The  destruction  of  one  copy  would  only  be  the  loss  of 
one  out  of  a  great  number ;  interpolations  or  alterations  in  one 
copy,  would  not  affect  the  others  which  remained  unmutilated. 
Indeed  any  one  who  has  read  the  Tractatus  Sopherim  may 
well  believe,  that  Jewish  superstition,  if  nothing  better,  would 
have  prevented  any  considerable  change  in  the  text  of  the 
Scriptures  at  this  period. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  dwell  here  on  the  inquiry,  how  much, 
or  what  portion,  of  the  Scriptures  were  called  prophetic, 
"We  have  seen  above,  that  the  idea  of  a  prophet,  among  the 


§  8.    PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.  209 

Hebrews,  was  not  confined  to  those  who  predicted  future 
events,  but  was  extended  to  all  who  preached,  wrote,  or  taught 
by  divine  inspiration.  Hence  in  the  division  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  made  we  know  not  how  long  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  the  historical  books,  as  well  as  those  which  we  now  call 
prophetic,  were  assigned  to  the  prophets.  Joshua,  Judges, 
I.  and  II.  Samuel,  and  I.  and  II.  Kings  are  called  d'^if'^SS 
n">5ii::x*^,  the  first  or  early  prophets.  This  is  a  Talraudic  ar- 
rangement. We  shall  see,  in  the  sequel,  that  Josephus,  and 
probably  Philo  and  Jesus  Sirachides,  include  the  other  his- 
torical books,  viz.  I.  11.  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther, 
Ruth,  and  probably  Job,  among  the  prophets ;  and  these 
books,  with  the  others  now  usually  named  prophetic  among 
us,  and  by  the  Hebrews  called  the  later  prophets,  were  all 
comprised  under  the  general  appellation  oi  Prophets.  The 
Haphtaroth  or  prophetical  Lections  extend,  therefore,  to  the 
historical  books,  as  well  as  to  the  books  now  called  prophetic 
by  us.  And  when  it  is  said,  (as  it  has  often  been  of  late), 
that  the  Kethubira  or  Hagiography  was  a  late  collection,  so 
late  that  no  Lections  were  made  from  it,  the  more  ancient 
division  of  the  sacred  books  is  not  only  overlooked,  but  the 
fact  that  the  book  of  Esther  has  always  been  publicly  read 
in  the  synagogues,  since  the  events  which  it  commemorates 
took  place,  at  the  feast  of  Purim  in  the  twelfth  month,  (which 
book  is  one  of  the  Hagiography,  according  to  the  Talmudic 
division  of  the  Scriptures),  is  ignored  or  very  conveniently 
forgotten.  Whatever  might  have  been  the  reason,  on  ac- 
count of  which  the  Talmudic  Rabbins  classed  the  last  named 
historical  books  with  the  Kethubira,  it  was  not  that  they  re- 
garded them  as  uninspired.  Nor  was  the  latest  composition 
the  criterion  of  what  belonged  to  the  Hagiography,  as  classi- 
fied by  them  ;  for  most  of  the  Psalms,  the  Proverbs,  Ruth, 
Job,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles,  (the  two  last  with  the  Pro- 
verbs, according  to  them,  from  the  pen  of  Solomon,  the  book 
of  Ruth  from  that  of  Samuel,  and  most  of  the  Psalms  from 
that  of  David),  were  regarded  of  course  as  being  older  than 
a  number  of  the  books  among  both  the  former  and  latter 

18* 


210  §  8.    PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

prophets,  e.  g.  Kings,  Ilaggai,  Zecbariah,  and  Malachi,  and 
(I  may  add)  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  and  Ezekiel. 

According  to  the  later  Rabbinical  division  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, then,  portions  of  all  the  three  great  divisions  of  the 
sacred  books  were  publicly  read  in  the  synagogues,  long  be- 
fore the  Cliristian  era.  We  can  have  no  doubt,  therefore, 
that  each  and  every  part  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  was  de- 
posited in  the  synagogues  respectively,  and  of  course  in  the 
temple. 

As  to  the  more  ancient  Hagiograpliy,  viz.  Psalms,  Pro- 
verbs, Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles,  (such  we  shall  see  is  the 
classification  of  Josephus),  I  will  not  undertake  to  say  with 
certainty  what  was  the  reason  that  no  Lections  for  the  syna- 
gogues were  taken  from  them.  But  as  there  is  a  correspon- 
dence, real  or  supposed,  between  the  Lections  from  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  those  from  the  Prophets,  it  would  seem  probable 
that  those  who  selected  these  Lections  did  not  find  a  sat- 
isfactory correspondence  in  the  books  just  named,  and  so  they 
omitted  to  select  from  them  ;  at  least  this  may  be  regarded  as 
probable  in  respect  to  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles. 
In  regard  to  the  Psalms,  many  correspondences  as  to  matter 
might  indeed  be  easily  found  ;  but  it  should  be  remembered, 
that  the  Psalms  were  very  extensively  employed  in  the  public 
singing  at  the  synagogue,  and  needed  not  to  be  read  in  the 
Lections. 

If  tradition  has  any  weight  in  this  matter,  it  would  seem  to 
be  quite  plain  and  certain,  that  all  three  parts  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  were  used,  as  the  basis  of  selection,  in  the  Jewish 
synagogues,  long  before  the  Christian  era.  This  usage,  we 
cannot  reasonably  doubt,  originated  not  long  after  the  com- 
plete arrangement  of  religious  matters  at  .Jerusalem,  under 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  facility  of  perpetuating  the  He- 
brew code  in  this  way,  is  very  obvious.  For  more  than  1800 
years  now  past,  it  has  been  perpetuated  in  the  synagogues, 
in  the  same  way ;  and  moreover  by  private  copies.  The 
custom  of  individuals  having  these  in  possession,  so  far  back 
as  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  is  clearly  adverted  to 


§  8.   PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.  211 

in  1  Mace.  1:  57,  "And  whenever  the  book  of  the  covenant 
was  found  with  any  one  {naoa  tivi)  .  .  .  the  sentence  of  the 
king  inflicted  death  upon  liim."  The  deplorable  experience 
of  former  ages,  as  to  turning  away  from  the  true  God  to  the 
worship  of  idols,  had  taught  the  Jewish  nation,  that  "  to  be 
without  knowledge  was  not  good  for  the  soul."  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  appear  to  have  entertained  very  enlightened  views 
in  regard  to  this  subject.  Hence  the  pains  taken  to  read, 
circulate  among  the  people,  and  inculcate  the  Scriptures, 
since  the  second  establishment  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine. 
Hence  the  departure  from  the  ancient  custom  of  remaining 
at  home  all  day  upon  the  sabbath,  and  the  resort  of  worship- 
pers and  learners  to  the  synagogue.  And  the  consequence 
of  all  this  was,  that  the  Jews  never  have  relapsed  again  into 
idolatry  ;  a  few  renegades  only  excepted  in  the  time  of  Anti- 
ochus,  or  when  under  the  yoke  of  some  other  foreign  tyrant. 

To  bring  our  present  topic,  viz.  the  preservation  of  the 
vScriptures,  to  a  close ;  I  cannot  help  remarking,  that  the  wis- 
dom of  Providence  seems  to  be  conspicuous,  in  directing 
matters  so  that  the  Jewish  Scriptures  were  laid  up  or  de- 
posited in  the  temple.  There,  constant  guardians  of  them  were 
always  found,  by  day  and  by  night.  There,  of  course,  the 
mutilation  or  interpolation  of  them  would  be  a  difficult,  if  not 
an  impossible,  thing.  Well  has  Abarbanel  (on  Deut.  31:  26) 
said  :  "  God  deposited  there  [in  the  sanctuary]  the  book  of 
the  Law,  that  it  might  remain  as  a  testimony  faithfully  pre- 
served, and  that  no  one  might  vitiate  or  mar  it  [the  Scrip- 
tures] ;  for  no  one  could  act  thus  basely  toward  writings 
which  were  surrounded  by  the  family  of  priests."  The  ab- 
solute impossibility  of  corrupting  the  sacred  books,  indeed, 
need  not  be  assumed,  and  could  not  well  be  maintained ;  for 
the  priests,  the  keepers  of  thera,  v*^ere  not  all  of  them  at  all 
times  good  men  and  true.  But  the  improbability  that  such 
a  thing  was  done  in  a  place  so  public  and  sacred,  may  well  be 
maintained. 

One  other  remark  is  naturally  suggested  by  the  topic  be- 
fore us.     This  is,  that  the   introduction  into  such  a  place  of 


212  §  8.    TRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS. 

books  as  sacred  and  as  worthy  of  being  kept  there,  must  usu- 
ally be  a  thing  of  more  than  ordinary  deliberation  and  so- 
lemnity. I  cannot  well  conceive,  since  the  prophets  were 
wont  to  be  consulted  on  all  the  graver  matters  of  church  or 
state,  that  a  book  could  have  been  placed  there  which  was 
not  sanctioned  by  their  judgment.  It  matters  not  whether 
the  writer  of  the  book  were  professionally  a  prophet,  or  not. 
There  might  be  occasional  inspiration,  in  some  cases,  where 
the  subject  of  it  was  not,  or  at  least  had  not  been,  a  prophet. 
But  if  the  advice  of  a  prophet  was  in  fact  followed,  in  de- 
positing any  book  as  sacred  in  the  temple,  then  that  book  has 
as  much  of  the  authentic  in  it,  as  the  work  of  the  prophet 
himself  would  have.  That  this  w^as  so,  viz.  that  the  authori- 
ty of  prophets  was  needed  and  resorted  to,  in  order  to  give 
any  book  a  claim  to  be  considered  as  scriptural,  would  seem 
to  be  almost  conclusively  shown  by  the  fact,  that  when  the 
succession  of  prophets  failed,  the  reception  of  any  more  hooks 
into  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  ceased.  Indeed,  I  can 
hardly  imagine  a  case,  while  the  order  of  prophets  continued, 
in  which  I  should  deem  it  probable  that  any  effort  could  be 
made  to  add  supposititious  books,  or  parts  of  books,  to  the 
holy  bibliotheca,  without  detection  and  exposure  by  some  of 
the  prophets,  whose  special  duty  it  was  in  all  things  to  watch 
over  the  interests  and  preserve  the  purity  of  the  Mosaic  re- 
ligion. 

If  I  were  disposed  to  bring  the  usages  of  other  countries, 
in  respect  to  books  that  w^ere  deemed  sacred  or  specially  im- 
portant, into  comparison  with  that  of  the  Hebrews,  I  might 
show  the  probability  of  the  Hebrew  usage  from  analogy,  even 
if  no  special  reference  be  had  to  the  fact  of  their  supposed  in- 
spiration. It  is  well  known,  that  among  the  ancient  Egyp- 
tians and  Babylonians,  the  priesthood  was  the  literary  or 
learned  class ;  and  to  them  were  confided  the  safe  keeping  of 
books  regarded  as  holy  or  very  valuable.  Most  of  these  were 
composed  by  persons  belonging  to  the  priesthood.  It  was  a 
matter  of  course  that  such  books,  being  their  own  productions, 
should  be  laid  up  in  the  temple  where  they  ministered,  for 


§  8.    PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SACRED  BOOKS.  213 

safe  keeping,  and  also  as  a  testimonial  of  honour  to  tliera. 
The  Greeks  called  these  literary  priests  of  foreign  countries, 
iSQOYQaiifiaxelg,  i.  e.  sacred  scribes.  Among  themselves, 
moreover,  the  Greeks  had  men  of  the  like  class,  whom  they 
named  yQaiA^iaielg  hnoi  or  i£Qonvi]^iov£g  ;  Ael.  Hist.  An.  XL 
10.  Ai'istot.  Pol.  VI.  8.  Demosth.  pro  Cor.  c.  27.  Among 
the  Romans,  also,  the  most  ancient  literature,  viz.  songs  and 
annals,  was  the  production  of  priests-;  Niebuhr  Rom.  Ge- 
schichte,  I.  p.  247,  ed.  11.  Bahr,  Gesch.  d.  Rom.  Lit.,  pp.  53 
seq.,  250  seq.  It  is  no  matter  of  surprise,  then,  that  Strabo 
(Lib.  XIV.  p.  734,  ed.  Xyl.)  calls  temples  Tzivaxod^rjxai,  i.  e. 
tablet  or  book-depositaries.  In  accordance  with  this  is  the 
account  given  of  Sanchoniathon,  the  Phenician  historian, 
who,  about  the  time  of  the  Trojan  war,  or  perhaps  earlier, 
compiled  a  work  out  of  temple-archives — a  work  which  was 
translated  into  Greek  by  Philo  Biblius  (c.  A.  D.  100),  in 
nine  books,  and  then  was  quoted  largely  by  Porphyry,  and 
also  by  Eusebius  (Praep.  Evang.  I.  9).  Sanchoniathon  him- 
self quotes  older  writers  ;  all  of  which,  by  the  way,  has  a  de- 
cisive bearing  on  the  question  about  the  antiquity  of  alpha- 
betical writing.  Berosus,  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadel- 
phus  (c.  280  B.  C),  wrote,  in  three  books,  the  Antiquities  of 
Chaldea  and  Babylonia,  the  materials  of  which  he  drew  from 
the  archives  of  the  temple  of  Belus,  where  he  was  a  priest. 
The  kings  of  Sparta,  who  were  also  priests,  kept  prophetic 
writings  in  the  temple,  which  had  respect  to  their  country ; 
Herod.  VI.  57.  At  Athens,  oracles,  and  secret  compacts 
important  to  the  welfare  of  the  city,  were  kept  in  the  Acro- 
polis, in  order  to  prevent  all  falsification ;  Dinarch.  Orat. 
cont.  Demosth.  91.  20.  Heraclitus  deposited  his  Work  upon 
Nature,  in  the  sanctuary  of  Diana  at  Ephesus,  in  order  to 
withdraw  it  from  the  eyes  of  the  profane ;  Diog.  Laert.  IX. 
6.  So  also  the  Romans  kept  their  Libri  Fulgurales  in  the 
temple  of  Apollo  (Serv.  ad  Acn.  VI.  72)  ;  their  Libri  Lintei, 
in  the  temple  of  Juno  Moneta  (Liv.  IV.  8.  IX.  18)  ;  the  Si- 
byls, priestesses  of  Apollo,  kept  their  Carmina  in  the  Capi- 
tol. ;  Niebuhr,  Rom.  Geschichte,  I.  p.  256  seq. 


214  §  9.    GENUINENESS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

A  practice  of  this  kind  could  hardly  have  become  so  gen- 
eral, without  some  obvious  reasons  for  it.  In  all  cases  of  this 
nature  it  is  quite  plain,  that  the  sacredness  of  the  place  was 
relied  on  as  likely  to  secure  the  inviolability  of  the  books ; 
and  the  permanent  structure  of  the  building  was  also  relied 
on,  as  affording  good  assurance  of  preservation.  In  the  case 
of  the  Hebrews,  many  reasons  combined  to  induce  them  to 
institute  and  keep  up  such  a  usage.  The  priests  were  the 
masters  of  the  ritual,  which  was  exceedingly  minute  and  cir- 
cumstantial ;  and  they  were  also  the  jurisconsults  and  eccle- 
siastical judges  of  the  nation.  The  necessity  of  having  the 
code  of  laws  always  at  hand,  would  compel  them  to  have 
temple-archives.  That  they  did  so,  admits  of  no  reasonable 
doubt. 


§  9.   General   Considerations  respecting  the   Genuineness  of 
the  hool's  in  the  Old  Testament  Canon. 

I  have  now  gone  through  with  some  account  of  the  books 
comprised  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  regard  to 
their  origin  and  authorship,  and  also  in  respect  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  were  preserved  in  the  early  ages.  It  may 
not  be  improper  to  introduce,  at  this  juncture,  a  few  consid- 
erations of  a  general  nature,  in  regard  to  the  collection  of 
books  which  we  name  the  Old  Testament. 

Whoever  is  acquainted  with  the  works  of  the  late  J.  G. 
Eichhorn  of  Gottingen,  knows  full  well,  that  for  some  thirty 
years  he  was  the  sun  of  the  neological  firmament.  Doubt- 
less his  writings,  many  of  them  being  at  the  same  time  both  pop- 
ular and  learned,  did  more  than  those  of  any  other  person  of 
Lis  time,  to  bring  forward  and  consummate  the  great  revolution 
in  theology  and  criticism,  which  has  taken  place  in  Germany 
and  the  bordering  countries.  Such  a  man  no  one  will  suspect 
of  orthodox  prejudice.  All  his  feelings  and  his  writings  were 
alien  enough  from  this.  Still,  on  mere  subjects  of  critique 
and  of  aesthetics,  he  was  usually  a  candid  and  fair  minded 
man.     At  all  events  he  rarely  says  anything  that  is  not  worth 


§  9.    GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS.  215 

listening  to,  and  he  may  put  in  a  just  claim  at  least  to  a  re- 
spectful attention. 

In  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  (3d  edit.  §  12 
seq.),  he  has  given  his  views  of  the  genuineness  of  the  sa- 
cred books  in  general ;  and  he  has  expressed  them  in  such  a 
way,  that  I  have  thought  it  on  the  whole  better  to  employ  his 
words  than  my  own,  in  reference  to  the  topic  under  consider- 
ation. If  I  am  suspected  of  being  juratus  in  verba  magi^ri, 
as  doubtless  I  may  be  by  some  who  do  not  know  me,  he  at 
least  is  removed  far  enough  from  all  possible  suspicion  of  this 
sort.  If  the  Destructives  will  not  listen  to  my  suggestions  be- 
cause, as  they  say,  I  must  talk  orthodoxly,  at  least  they  ought 
to  listen  to  him,  who  claims  so  near  a  relationship  to  them. 

Having  described  the  general  nature,  names,  and  order  of 
the  Old  Testament  books,  Eichhorn,  proceeds  as  follows  : 

I.   They  do  not  arise  from  the  forgery  of  any  one  individual. 

Whoever  is  endowed  with  adequate  knowledge,  and  investi- 
gates with  impartiality  the  question,  ivhether  the  ivritings  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  genuine,  must  surely  answer  it  in  the  affirma- 
tive. No  one  deceiver  can  have  forged  them  all — this  every 
page  of  the  Old  Testament  proclaims.  Wijat  a  variety  in  language 
and  expression!  Isaiah  does  not  write  like  Moses;  nor  Jeremiah 
like  Ezekiel ;  and  between  these  and  every  one  of  the  Minor 
Prophets  a  great  gulf  of  style  is  fixed.  The  grammatical  edifice 
of  language  in  Moses,  has  much  that  is  peculiar ;  in  the  book  of 
Judges  occur  provincialisms  and  barbarisms.  Isaiah  f)Ours  forth 
words  already  formed  in  a  new  shape  ;  Jeremiali  and  Ezekiel  are 
full  of  Chaldaisms.  In  a  word,  when  one  proceeds  from  writers 
who  are  to  be  assigned  to  early  periods  of  time,  to  those  which 
are  later,  he  finds  in  the  language  a  gradual  decline,  until  at  last 
it  sinks  down  into  mere  Clialdaic  turns  of  expression. 

Then  come  next  the  discrepancies  in  the  circle  of  ideas  and 
of  images.  The  stringed  instruments  sound  aloud  when  touched 
by  Moses  and  Isaiah  ;  soft  is  the  tone  when  David  handles 
them.  Solomon's  Muse  shines  forth  in  all  the  splendour 
of  a  most  luxurious  court;  but  her  sister  in  simple  attire  wan- 
ders, with  David,  by  the  brooks  and  the  river  banks,  in  the  fields 
and  among  the  herds.  One  poet  is  original,  like  Isaiah,  Joel, 
Habakkuk;  another  copies,  like  Ezekiel.  One  roams  in  the 
untrodden  path  of  genius ;  another  glides  along  the  way  which 


21 G  §  9.    GENUINENESS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

his  predecessors  have  trodden.  From  one  issue  rays  of  learn- 
ing ;  \vliiK-t  liis  neiglibor  has  not  been  caught  by  one  spark  of 
Hteratuie.  In  the  oldest  writers  strong  Egyptian  colours  glimmer 
through  and  through ;  in  their  successors  they  become  fainter 
and  fainter,  until  at  last  tliej''  entirely  disappear. 

Finally,  there  is  in  njanners  and  customs  the  finest  gradation. 
At  first,  all  is  simple  and  natural,  like  to  what  we  see  in  Homer, 
and  among  the  Bedouin  Arabs  even  at  the  ])resent  time  ;  but 
this  noble  simplicity  gradually  loses  itself  in  luxury  and  effemi- 
nacy, and  vanishes  at  last  in  the  splendid  court  of  Solomon. 

Nowhere  is  there  a  sudden  leap  ;  everywhere  the  progress  is 
gradual.  J\''une  but  ignorant  or  thoughtless  doubters  can  suppose 
the  Old  Testament  to  have  been  forged  by  one  deceiver. 

The  colouring  which  the  painter  has  here  employed  is  vi- 
vid, but  the  objects  are  true  and  real,  and  are  not  formed  by 
his  fancy.  It  is  impossible  to  read  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
with  the  exercise  of  any  discriminating  judgment  and  aesthe- 
tical  feeling,  Avithout  acceding  in  the  main  to  what  Eichhorn. 
has  stated.  Thousands  of  nice  touches  and  dashes  of  light 
and  shade,  in  the  original  objects,  are  lost  in  our  English  ver- 
sion, where  all  are  mingled  together,  and  melted  so  as  to  be- 
come one  mass  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  crucible.  But  as  to  the 
critical  reader  of  the  Hebrew — if  he  has  one  spark  of  aesthe- 
tical  fire  in  him,  or  if  he  carries  along  with  him  even  the 
feeblest  torch  of  discrimination,  he  must  accede  to  the  truth- 
fulness and  the  sound  judgment  of  Eichhorn,  as  to  this  matter 
in  general.  A  forgery  of  all  these  books  by  one  person, 
would  be  a  greater  miracle  than  any  which  the  books  have  re- 
lated. But  let  us  join  again  the  company  of  the  Gottingen 
Professor : 

II.  Tliey  are  not  the  forgery  of  ma^y  deceivers. 

'  But  perhaps,'  some  one  may  reply, 'perhaps  7}iany  forgers  have 
made  common  cause,  and  at  the  same  time,  in  souje  later  period, 
have  got  up  the  books  in  question.' — But  how  could  they  forge  in 
a  way  so  entirely  conformed  to  the  progress  of  the  human  luider- 
standing  ?  And  was  it  possible  in  later  times  to  create  the  language 
of  Moses  ?  This  surpasses  all  human  powers.  Finally,  one 
writer  always  supposes  the  existence  of  another.    They  could  not 


§  9.    GENERAL    CONSIDERATIONS.  217 

then  all  have  arisen  at  the  sa7ne  time ;  they  must  have  existed 
successively. 

"  Perhaps  then,"  it  may  be  further  said,  "  such  forgers  arose 
at  different  times,  wlio  continued  onward,  in  the  introduction  of 
supposititious  writings,  from  the  place  wliere  their  deceitful 
predecessors  had  stopped.  In  this  way  may  all  the  references 
to  preceding  writers  be  explained ;  in  this  way  may  we  explain 
the  striking  gradation  that  exists,  in  all  its  parts." 

But,  (1)  How  was  it  possible  that  no  one  should  have  discov- 
ered the  trick,  exposed  it,  and  put  a  brand  upon  the  deceiver,  in 
order  that  posterity  might  be  secured  against  injury  ?  How  could 
a  whole  nation  be  often  deceived,  and  at  different  periods  ? 
(2)  What  design  could  such  a  deceiver  have  had  in  view  ?  Did 
he  aim  at  eulogizing  the  Hebrew  nation  ?  Then  are  his  eulogies 
the  severest  satires ;  for  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  He- 
brew nation  have  acted  a  very  degrading  part.  Or,  did  he  mean 
to  degrade  them  ?  In  this  case,  how  could  he  force  his  books 
upon  the  very  people  whom  they  defamed,  and  the  story  of  whose 
being  trodden  under  foot  by  foreign  nations  is  told  in  plain  blunt 
words  ? 

These  remarks  seem  to  me  to  be  equally  just  with  the  pre- 
ceding ones.  A  series  of  forgers,  in  such  a  succession  of  ages, 
all  developing  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  predecessors, 
and  still  true  to  their  own  particular  age  in  all  their  charac- 
teristic features  !  And  a  nation  distinguished  above  all  others 
for  activity  and  shrewdness,  tamely  receiving  and  submitting 
to  all  these  impositions  !  The  thing  is  unheard  of;  it  is  im- 
probable ;  nay,  it  is  absolutely  impossible,  in  the  common  course 
of  things.  Impostors  and  forgers  write  Isaiah,  and  Joel,  and 
Habakkuk,  and  Nahum,  and  Job,  and  the  Psalms  ?  It  is  im- 
possible. It  is  altogether  more  incredible  than  any  so-called 
myth  in  all  the  Old  Testament.  The  story  of  Jonah  and  of 
Samson,  which  have  set  in  motion  the  whole  circle  of  obstrepe- 
rous and  vituperative  criticism,  is  a  matter  quite  within  the 
reach  of  ordinary  faith,  in  comparison  with  such  a  figment  as 
this. 

I  must  solicit  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  one  point  in 
particular,  to  which  Eichhorn  has  adverted,  and  which  is  pe- 
culiarly characteristic  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  is  this,  viz.,  that  they  disclose  the  faults  as  well  as  the  vir- 

19 


218  §  9>   GENUINENE&S  OF  OLD  TESTAM*ENT. 

tues  of  men  whom  they  hold  up  to  view,  and  of  the  people  to 
whom  they  belong.  What  shall  we  say  of  Adam,  Noah, 
Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses  even,  David,  Solomon,  Asa, 
and  others,  in  every  way  so  conspicuous  as  ancestors  or  as 
kino-s  of  the  Jewish  nation  ?  Is  there  one  whose  faults  are 
not  unveiled?  One  even  whose  weaknesses  are  not  re- 
vealed? And  what  can  we  say  of  the  whole  history? — the 
history  of  God's  chosen  people,  distinguished  from  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth — the  posterity  of  Abraham — the  nation  "  to 
whom  belongs  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants, 
and  the  giving  of  the  Law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the 
promises  ?"  Is  there  a  history  on  earth  of  any  people,  (unless 
it  be  some  caricature  sketched  by  the  hand  of  an  enemy), 
which  is  half  so  full  of  narrations  that  respect  their  perverse- 
ness,  and  disobedience,  and  rebellion,  and  gross  idolatry  and 
immorality?  AVhere  is  there  such  a  history?  Who  wrote  it? 
Or  if  such  an  one  exists,  where  is  there  an  account  of  its  be- 
ing received  by  the  very  people  whom  it  characterizes,  and 
regarded  as  a  book  replete  with  truths  that  are  divine  ?  The 
challenge  to  produce  it,  may  be  fearlessly  made.  The  result 
is  beyond  a  question. 

Will  any  one  explain  to  me,  now,  how  such  a  matter  as  the 
reception  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  as  sacred  was  brought  about, 
in  the  natural  course  of  things  ?  .  The  historians  and  the  pro- 
phets, one  and  all,  charging  the  nation  with  ingratitude  and 
rebelHon,  and  threatening  them  with  subjugation  and  exile, 
with  sword  and  famine  and  pestilence — and  yet  these  histo- 
rians and  prophets  admitted  as  counsellors  and  guides,  and 
their  works  canonized!  There  is  something  of  the  extraordina- 
ry in  all  this,  which  is  no  myth,  to  say  the  least.  Naturalists 
are  bound  to  untie  the  knot ;   we  cannot  permit  them  to  cut  it. 

But  when  one  adds  to  all  this  the  consideration  of  the  mat- 
ter as  connected  with  forgery  and  imposture,  it  becomes  quite 
unendurable.  Forgers  and  imj)ostors  so  elevated  and  honoured 
for  characterizing  a  people  in  such  a  way,  as  must  cause  the 
cheek  of  every  ingenuous  Hebrew  to  blush  for  his  nation ! 
Is  there  nothing  mythic  in  this  ?     Men  too  of  such  a  stamp  as 


§  9.    GENERAL    CONSIDERATIONS.  219 

forgers  and  impostors,  filled  with  overflowing  zeal  on  all  occa- 
sions for  the  worship  and  honour  and  glory  of  the  true  God, 
and  for  the  holiness  and  benevolence  and  justice  and  integrity 
of  the  Hebrew  nation  ?  Is  this  the  character  of  men  of  such  a 
stamp?  It  is  a  downright  contradiction  of  all  that  belongs  to 
the  history  of  our  race.  It  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
moral  impossibility.  ^'.  Quodcunque  ostendis  mihi  sic,  incredu- 
lus  odi." 

Romancers  have  in  view  the  exaltation  of  their  hero.  Even 
the  gravest  and  most  tasteful  of  them  scarcely  glance  at  a  fault. 
How  has  Xenophon  presented  his  Cyrus ;  Homer  his  Achil- 
les ;  Virgil  his  Aeneas  ?  Whatever  we,  judging  by  our  stand- 
ards, may  find  in  them  which  is  faulty,  it  was  not  the  inten- 
tion of  these  respective  writers  to  hold  up  any  faults  to  view. 
Is  it  so  with  the  picture  of  David,  in  the  book  of  Kings  ?  So 
with  the  picture  of  even  "  the  wisest  of  men  ?"  And  if  it  be 
said  that  the  books  of  Chronicles  have  kept  the  faults  of  these 
distinguished  personages  out  of  view,  the  reply  is  easy  :  The 
story  was  already  told  in  the  book  of  Kings,  and  the  Chronicler 
had  in  view  principally  what  these  Jewish  monarchs  did  to  ac- 
commodate, arrange,  and  complete  the  worship  of  God  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  Moses. 

No ;  the  histories  of  the  Jews  are  unlike  those  of  all  other 
nations.  God  and  his  honour  and  worship  and  ordinances  are 
the  nucleus  of  them  all.  Men — the  whole  nation — are  but 
secondary  actors  in  this  great  drama.  A  David  and  a  Solo- 
mon come  before  the  tribunal  of  the  historian,  at  his  bidding, 
laying  aside  their  crowns  and  their  heroism  and  their  wisdom, 
and  standing  there  to  be  judged  for  their  vices  as  impartially 
as  the  meanest  subject  in  their  kingdom.  Is  this  so  else- 
where, and  in  respect  to  men  whose  virtues  are  preeminent? 
I  cannot  find  it. 

How  then  was  all  this  brought  about  ?  Not  by  forgers  and 
impostors  ;  not  by  the  ordinary  tactics  of  national  historians 
and  the  writers  of  memoirs.  There  is  an  honesty,  an  integ- 
rity, a  boldness,  an  independence,  a  love  of  truth,  and  a  hatred 
of  sin  in  every  form,  which  stands  out  to  view  so  prominently 


220  §  9.    GENUINENESS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

in  all  the  historians  and  prophets  of  the  Hebrews,  that  I  feel 
compelled  to  say  :  The  hand  of  the  Lord  is  here  ;  his  Spirit 
breathed  into  these  writers  the  breath  of  a  piety  which  could 
not  die  ;  it  kindled  a  flame  in  their  breasts,  whose  light  all  the 
surrounding  darkness  could  not  extinguish. 

But  I  must  desist.  Once  more  then  let  us  listen  to  the 
former  coryphaeus  of  Neology.  He  gives  us  some  diagnos- 
tics by  which  we  may  judge  in  respect  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  books  in  question,  §  13. 

The  Old  Testament  bears  all  the  marks  of  genuineness  en- 
stamped  upon  it.  (1)  The  very  same  grounds  which  are  avail- 
able in  a  contest  for  Homer,  establisli  the  genuineness  of  all  and 
particular  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Why  should  one 
deny  to  these  tlie  equity  which  he  extends  to  heathen  writers  ? 
If  a  profane  writer  plants  himself  in  some  particular  age  and 
country,  and  if  all  the  external  and  internal  circumstances  of  his 
book  accord  with  this,  no  impartial  inquirer  refuses  to  acknow- 
ledge him.  Yea,  one  does  not  hesitate  at  all  to  determine  the 
uncertain  age  of  any  writer,  by  internal  arguments  drawn  from 
liis  works.  Why  should  not  the  critical  mquirer  respecting  the 
Bible,  walk  in  the  same  path  ? 

(2)  No  one  lias  j^et,  with  any  good  grounds,  been  able  to  over- 
throw the  integrity  and  credibility  of  the  Old  Testament.  On 
the  contrary,  every  discovery  in  ancient  literature  has  hitherto 
only  served  for  the  confirmation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  No 
one  has  sliown,  that  any  writer  of  the  Old  Testament  has  ex- 
hibited a  style,  or  knowledge,  or  introduced  circumstantial  mat- 
ters, which  are  not  appropriate  to  the  age  assigned  to  him. 

(3)  In  brief,  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  bear 
the  names  of  their  authors,  are  marked  with  the  stamp  of  integ- 
rity on  the  part  of  these  authors.  And  with  respect  to  the  books 
that  are  anonymous,  internal  grounds  demonstrate  that  we  must 
regard  them  as  genuine.  The  book  of  Joshua,  for  example, 
■whose  author  is  unknown,  goes  so  deep  into  the  detail  of  the 
most  ancient  geography,  that  a  forger  must  have  wrought  mira- 
cle upon  miracle,  in  order  to  put  himself  in  a  condition  so  as  to 
comf)ose  it. 

Let  one  examine  this  matter  in  a  discriminating  way  and 
without  prejudice,  and  I  am  certain  that  he  must  convince  him- 
self of  the  integrity  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Eichhorn  goes  on,  in  the  sequel,  to  show,  that  even  on  the 


§  10.    COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.  221 

ground  that  new  accessions  have  been  made  to  some  of  the 
books,  and  that  several  of  them  are  compounded  of  various 
authors,  no  argument  of  any  force  can  be  drawn  from  this 
source,  to  confront  the  allegation  of  integrity.  Such  things 
have  happened  to  most  of  the  early  writers  among  other  na- 
tions. Not  a  few  books  of  the  Scriptures  are  professedly 
drawn  from  other  sources  ;  and  others  not  professedly  so,  ex- 
hibit internal  marks  of  the  fact.  But  a  book  compounded  in 
this  way  may  be  as  genuine  and  worthy  of  credit,  as  any  oth- 
er book. 

Thus  thought  and  wrote  the  great  leader  of  the  new  array, 
in  the  war  against  the  divine  authority  and  obligation  of  the 
Scriptures.  With  him,  when  writing  here,  the  question  was 
one  merely  of  critical  judgment  and  feeling.  Nobly  has  he 
managed  the  cause  of  what  I  believe  to  be  sound  criticism, 
and  justly  has  he  decided  it.  With  all  his  freethinking  and 
independence  of  mind,  he  is  left,  in  the  race  of  neological 
criticism,  immeasurably  behind  De  Wette,  Ewald,  Lengerke, 
Mi\  Norton,  and  their  compeers. 

Leaving  all  theological  bearings  of  our  matter  out  of  ques- 
tion for  the  present,  I  do  not  see  how,  as  fair-minded  critics 
and  exegetes,  we  can  refuse  to  adopt  the  sentiments  of  Eich- 
horn,  as  exhibited  above.  I  would  not  undertake  to  prove, 
that  all  which  this  writer  has  published  will  harmonize  with 
these  views.  But  I  am  gratified  to  have  it  in  my  power  to 
express,  in  language  borrowed  from  him,  the  views  which  I 
entertain  in  respect  to  this  very  important  subject. 

§  10.   Time  when  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
completed. 

This  has,  in  recent  times,  become  a  much  contested  ques- 
tion. The  criticism  that  has  been  moving  on  in  the  wake  of 
Wolf,  Heyne,  and  their  compeers,  (who  discovered  tliat  Ho- 
mer's Iliad  and  Odyssey  are  nothing  but  a  mere  farrago  of 
many  songs  composed  in  different  ages  and  countries,  and 
that  the  art  of  alphabetic  writing  was  unknown  in  the  time  of 
19* 


«.« 


222  §  10.    COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

Homer,  and  of  course  in  the  time  of  Moses),  has  made  the 
like  discoveries  in  regard  to  almost  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  According  to  recent  critics,  every  book  of  the  Old 
Testament,  with  the  exception  of  Ruth,  Esther,  possibly  Can- 
ticles (but  here  they  differ),  Ezekiel,  and  some  of  the  minor 
prophets,  is  a  patch-work  of  cloth  and  colours  of  all  textures 
and  all  varieties.  The  time  in  which  most  of  these  books 
were  composed,  was,  according  to  them,  at  or  after,  in  some 
cases  long  after,  the  Babylonish  exile.  In  particular,  the 
book  of  Daniel  is  placed  deep  down,  even  into  the  time  of 
the  Maccabees,  i.  e.  about  IGO — 140  B.  C. ;  as  also  some  of 
the  Psalms,  and  not  improbably  various  other  portions  of 
books  the  body  of  which  may  be  older.  The  question  in  re- 
spect to  this  matter  is  one  of  deep  interest  to  sacred  criticism  ; 
although  it  would  not  be  very  important  to  my  present  main 
purpose,  which  is  to  show  what  that  canon  of  Old  Testament 
books  consisted  of,  which  was  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  Even  the  most  loose  of  the  so  called  liberal  critics 
do  not  pretend  that  any  of  the  Old  Testament  books  have 
been  added  to  the  canon  since  the  commencement  of  the 
Christian  era ;  so  that,  come  into  being  when  or  how  they 
may,  if  they  existed  before  the  Christian  era,  and  were  sanc- 
tioned as  of  divine  authority  by  the  author  himself  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  by  his  apostles,  it  would  be  enough  for  my  spe- 
cial purpose.  But  as  I  said  at  commencement  of  this  trea- 
tise, I  have  a  more  general  object  in  view,  as  well  as  the  par- 
ticular one  just  named ;  and  this  is,  to  give  the  outlines  of 
the  critical  history  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  in  general. 
To  do  this,  it  is  indispensable  to  investigate,  with  some  par- 
ticularity, the  point  which  is  brought  before  us  by  the  head- 
ing to  the  present  section. 

I  begin  with  the  testimony  of  Josephus  in  relation  to  the 
matter  in  question,  because,  although  it  is  not  the  most  an- 
cient, it  is  still  the  most  definite  and  particular  that  can  be 
found  in  any  writer  of  the  more  remote  antiquity.  It  is  found 
in  his  work  Contra  Apionem,  against  whom  he  is  defending 
the  credibility  and  authenticity  of  the   Hebrew  Scriptures. 


§  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.         223 

After  appealing  to  the  agreement  between  profane  and  Old 
Testament  history  as  to  many  important  facts  related  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  he  then  goes  on  to  express  himself  as 
follows : 

"We  have  not  a  countless  number  of  books,  discordant  and 
arrayed  against  each  other;  but  only  two  and  twenty  books,  con- 
taining the  history  of  every  age,  which  are  justly  accredited  as 
divine  [old  editiojis  of  Josephus  read  merely:  "which  are  just- 
ly accredited" — dela  comes  from  Eusebius'  transcript  of  Jo- 
sephus in  Ecc.  Hist.  III.  10]  ;  and  of  these,^ve  belong  to  Moses, 
which  contain  both  the  laws  and  the  liistory  of  the  generations 
of  men  until  his  death.  This  period  lacks  but  little  of  3000 
years.  From  the  death  of  Moses,  moreover,  until  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes,  [Euseb. — '  from  the  death  of  Moses  to  that  of  Ar- 
•taxerxes' — and  so  most  of  the  Codices  omitting  uQ'/J]9t  reign], 
king  of  the  Persians  after  Xerxes,  the  prophets  who  followed 
Moses  have  described  the  things  which  were  done  during  the 
age  of  each  one  respectively,  in  thirteen  books.  The  remaining 
four  contain  hymns  to  God,  and  rules  of  life  for  men.  From 
the  time  of  Artaxerxes,  moreover,  until  our  present  period,  all 
occurrences  have  been  written  down  ;  but  they  are  not  regard' 
ed  as  entitled  to  the  like  credit  with  those  luhich  precede  them, 
because  there  was  no  certain  succession  of  prophets.  Fact  has 
shown  what  confidence  we  place  in  our  own  writings.  For  al- 
though so  many  ages  have  passed  awaj^,  no  one  has  dared  to 
add  to  them,  nor  to  take  anything  from  them,  nor  to  make  al- 
terations. In  all  Jews  it  is  implanted,  even  from  their  birth,  to 
regard  them  as  being  tiie  instructions  of  God,  and  to  abide 
steadfastly  by  them,  and  if  it  be  necessary  to  die  gladly  for  them." 
(For  the  original  Greek,  see  Appendix  No.  III.) 

Of  the  historian  from  whom  this  passage  is  taken,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  say  much.  Josephus  was  perhaps  more  distin- 
guished and  learned,  than  any  other  man  of  his  time  belong- 
ing to  the  Jewish  nation.  His  father  was  a  priest  in  the  regu- 
lar order  of  the  twenty-four  courses  ordained  by  David  ;  and 
his  mother  was  a  lineal  descendant  of  the  Maccabaean  kings, 
who  also  were  priests.  His  father  Matthias  was  a  man  dis- 
tinguished not  only  for  his  noble  birth,  but  for  his  praisewor- 
thy deeds.  To  his  son  Joseph  or  Josephus,  born  about  A. 
D.  37,  he  gave  the  best  education  in  his  power ;  and  so  ef- 


224        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

fectual  were  the  means  employed,  that  at  the  age  of  fourteen 
this  boy  was  consulted  by  the  chief  priests  and  leaders  of  the 
city  respecting  difficult  passages  of  the  Law.  So  J.osephus 
himself  has  told  us  ;  and  this  seems  to  render  altogether  im- 
probable the  allegations  made  here  and  there  not  unfrequent- 
ly,  that  Josephus  had  no  tolerable  acquaintance  with  the  He- 
brew. At  the  age  of  sixteen  he  began  his  inquiries  respect- 
ing the  several  Jewish  sects,  and  actually  spent  three  years 
in  solitude  with  Banus  one  of  the  Essenes,  in  order  to  be- 
come thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  principles  of  that  sect. 
At  the  age  of  nineteen  he  joined  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees, 
which  was  altogether  predominant  at  that  period.  At  the 
age  of  twenty-six  he  went  to  Rome  as  advocate  before  Nero 
Caesar  for  some  falsely  accused  Jevi^ish  priests,  and  procured 
their  liberation.  Not  long  after  this  the  Jewish  war  broke 
out,  and  Josephus,  espousing  the  part  of  his  countrymen,  was 
put  in  command,  and  made  a  most  gallant  defence  of  Jotapa- 
ta  against  Vespasian.  But  there,  at  length,  he  was  taken 
prisoner,  was  subsequently  kept  by  Vespasian  and  Titus  as  a 
medium  of  communication  between  them  and  the  Jews,  and 
finally,  when  the  conquest  of  Judea  had  been  completed,  he 
was  taken  by  Titus  to  Rome,  where  Vespasian  assigned  him 
a  dwelling  in  a  part  of  the  palace,  with  honorary  maintenance. 
There  he  wrote  his  great  works,  the  Antiquities  and  the  His- 
tory of  the  Jewish  War.  Later  in  life  he  wrote  his  Treatise 
against  Apion,  in  defence  of  the  Jewish  religion  and  their 
sacred  books.  Apion  was  a  grammarian  of  Alexandria,  who, 
under  Caligula's  reign,  wrote  a  violent  attack  upon  Philo  Ju- 
daeus  and  upon  the  Jewish  nation.  Near  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  Josephus  wrote  the  Treatise  in  question ;  so 
that  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  fruit  of  his  most  mature  re- 
flections and  studies. 

His  knowledge  of  Greek  literature  is  spoken  of  by  Je- 
rome with  astonishment.  There  is  abundant  evidence  of  it 
in  his  Contra  Apionem.  His  knowledge  of  the  history  of 
his  own  nation  is  sufficiently  testified,  by  his  two  great  works 
in  relation  to  this  subject.     It  has  been  thought  that  he  was 


§  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.         225 

but  moderately  skilled  in  Hebrew,  because  he  usually  appeals 
to  the  Sept.  Version.  But  for  this,  two  good  reasons  can  be 
assigned ;  the  one,  that  he  fully  believed  in  the  miraculous 
rise  of  the  Septuagint,  as  is  shown  by  his  account  of  this  mat- 
ter ;  the  other,  that  the  Romans  for  whom  he  wrote  the  history, 
could  read  the   Septuagint  but  not  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

That  of  all  the  men  of  his  time  among  the  Jews,  he  was 
best  qualified  to  give  an  account  of  Jewish  affairs  and  Jewish 
opinions,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  I  can  see  nothing 
that  could  sway  him  to  give  a  wrong  account  of  what  his 
countrymen  and  himself  believed,  in  regard  to  the  history  of 
the  Jewish  Canon.  What  that  belief  was,  his  rank  in  life, 
his  office  as  a  priest,  and  above  all  his  great  learning,  must 
have  rendered  him  able  to  know.  Can  any  good  ground  be 
assigned  for  the  supposition,  that  he  has  not  given  a  true  ac- 
count of  this  matter  ? 

The  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  among  whom  he  formed  his  re- 
ligious opinions,  were  of  all  men  the  most  tenacious  of  tradi- 
tions and  of  the  customs  of  former  days ;  and  when  he  as- 
sures us  of  this  and  that  opinion  among  the  Jews  of  his  time, 
I  do  not  know  of  any  writer  among  the  ancients,  the  sacred 
writers  excepted,  who  is  more  trust-worthy  than  he. 

Thus  much  that  the  reader  may  understandingly  appreciate 
the  testimony  which  we  have  before  us.  I  return  to  the  con- 
sideration of  that  testimony. 

My  first  remark  is,  that  there  is  no  ground  to  suppose,  that 
Josephus  gives  us  any  other  than  the  general  and  settled 
opinion  of  the  great  mass  of  the  Jewish  nation.  To  the  party 
of  the  Pharisees  this  mass  assuredly  belonged.  The  Saddu- 
cees  were  powerful  only  by  virtue  of  wealth,  and  perliaps 
learning.  They  were  but  a  small  party.  The  Essenes  lived 
mostly  abroad,  in  desert  or  lonely  places,  and  avoided  mixing 
with  the  world.  Josephus  then  gives  us  not  a  peculiar  opin- 
ion of  his  own  merely,  but  speaks  evidently  in  behalf  of  the 
great  mass  of  the  Jewish  people.  Finally,  if  there  were  any- 
thing merely  sectarian  in  the  views  of  the  Pharisees  respect- 
ing the  Hebrew  Canon,  Josephus  would  not  have  been  likely 


^ 


226        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

to  embrace  that  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  inasmuch  as  he 
evidently  lost,  in  later  life,  his  early  zeal  for  Pharisaism,  as 
appears  from  many  passages  in  his  Antiquities.  On  the 
whole,  we  can  hardly  conceive  of  any  one  in  a  better  condi- 
tion to  give  a  clear  and  impartial  account  of  the  light,  in 
which  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  viewed  by  the  Jews  of 
that  period. 

Secondly,  we  might  be  in  some  doubt  what  king  of  Persia 
was  meant  by  the  Artaxerxes  of  Josephus,  (inasmuch  as  this 
same  name  is  given  by  some  to  several  Persian  kings),  had 
not  the  historian  been  so  explicit  as  to  dispel  all  doubt  on  this 
point,  by  saying,  that  the  Artaxerxes  in  question  was  the  fol- 
lower of  Xerxes  upon  the  throne  of  Persia.  This  Artax- 
erxes (Longimanus)  began  his  reign  in  464  B.  C,  and  died 
in  424  B.  C.  Of  course  he  reigned  forty  years.  Later  than 
424  B.  C,  then,  no  jyart  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  can  he,  if  the 
testimony  of  Josephus  is  well  grounded. 

Thirdly,  Josephus  assigns  all  the  historical  books  of  the 
Canon  to  prophets :  "  The  prophets,  after  Moses,  described 
the  events  which  took  place  in  their  respective  periods,  in 
thirteen  books."  The  word  prophets,  therefore,  is  plainly 
used  by  him,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  have  defined  and  em- 
ployed it  in  the  preceding  pages.  What  books  are  included 
in  this  enumeration  of  thirteen,  is  an  inquiry  that  will  be  made 
in  the  sequel. 

Fourthly,  he  states  in  the  most  plain  and  unequivocal  man- 
ner, that  since  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  down  to  the  time  in 
which  he  himself  lived,  passing  events  had  been  fully  noted 
— ytyQaniai  ^ev  enaata — but  "  credit  was  not  attached  to 
these  histories,  in  like  manner  as  to  the  earlier  ones  [the 
canonical  books],  because  there  was  no  certain  succession  of 
prophets'^  during  that  period.  Here  then  are  two  facts  on 
which  he  rests  the  opinion  that  he  gives  ;  the  first,  that  the 
sacred  books  were  completed  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  ;  the 
second,  that  other  books,  continuing  the  history  of  the  Jews, 
were  composed  by  those  who  were  not  prophets,  and  therefore 
could  not  claim  that  credit  which  belonged  to  the  former. 


§  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.        227 

How  well  this  view  of  Joseplius  accords  with  what  I  have 
stated  in  the  preceding  pages,  viz.,  that  books  were  not  ad- 
mitted to  the  Jewish  Canon  unless  regarded  as  of  prophetic 
origin,  must  be  obvious  to  every  reader.  Had  Josephus  been 
an  ignorant  or  unlearned  person,  who  had  no  knowledge  of 
other  books  than  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  we  should  attribute 
less  weight  to  his  opinion.  Such  a  man  could  have  examined 
only  one  side  of  the  question.  But  here  is  a  witness  who,  as 
we  may  reasonably  say,  has  read  all  the  books  which  pertain 
to  Jewish  affairs,  and  who  still  draws  a  distinction  wide  and 
broad,  between  those  that  are  sacred  and  fully  credible,  and 
those  which  can  be  regarded  only  as  the  works  of  erring 
men.  No  reasonable  advocate  for  the  claims  of  inspiration 
at  the  present  day,  could  ask  for  stronger  or  more  definite 
and  intelligible  expressions,  than  those  of  Josephus. 

I  know  not  how  language  can  make  it  more  certain  than 
that  of  Josephus  has  made  it,  that  he  knew  well,  and  made 
definitely,  the  distinction  between  the  now  called  apocryphal 
books  and  those  of  the  Canon.  It  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  both ;  for  he  has  drawn  from  both  in  his 
Antiquities. 

In  order  that .  we  may  have  no  doubts  left  as  to  the  exact 
meaning  of  Josephus,  we  must  advert  to  the  order  which  he 
has  followed  in  the  historical  narrations  of  his  Antiquities. 
In  Lib.  XI.  he  presents  us  with  the  history  of  the  Jews,  from 
the  time  when  the  decree  of  Cyrus  for  their  liberation  was 
issued  (536  B.  C),  down  to  the  time  when  Palestine  was 
overrun  by  Alexander  the  Great  (331  B.  C).  In  chap.  V. 
of  this  book  he  has  presented  us  with  an  account  of  events 
recorded  in  the  book  of  Ezra,  in  respect  to  this  distinguished 
priest  and  leader  of  the  new  colony  of  Jewish  immigrants  ; 
and  he  places  all  these  events  under  the  reign  of  Xerxes  I, 
taking  him  to  be  the  king,  which,  in  Ezra  8:  1  seq.  of  our 
Scriptures,  is  named  Artaxerxes.  The  journey  of  Nehemiah 
and  his  friends  to  Jerusalem,  he  assigns  to  the  twenty-fifth 
year  of  the  same  king's  reign  (Antiq.  XL  5,  7),  while  the 
Bible  assigns  it  to  the  twentieth  year  of  Ai'taxerxes  ;  Neh.  2: 


228        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

1,  comp.  5: 14),  i.  e.  about  twelve  years  after  the  immigration 
of  Ezra.  Whether  the  error  lies  in  the  reading  of  the  Codi- 
ces of  Josephus,  or  in  his  oversight,  in  this  case,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  decide,  and  it  is  not  of  any  importance  to  my  pre- 
sent object  to  make  a  decision.  Xerxes'  reign  lasted  but  twen- 
ty-one years.  There  are,  moreover,  other  small  discrepancies 
of  the  like  nature  between  Josephus  and  the  Scriptures ;  e.  g. 
as  to  the  time  (fifty-two  days)  in  which  the  walls  of  Jerusalem 
were  completed  under  Neheraiah  (see  Neh.  6:  15),  while  Jo- 
sephus assigns  two  years  and  four  months  as  the  period  of 
completion  ;  Antiq.  XL  5,  8.  But  still,  nothing  is  plainer 
than  that  this  historian  abridges  and  copies  the  whole  book 
of  Nehemiah,  for  substance,  into  his  own,  and  he  represents 
the  death  of  this  distinguished  leader  as  taking  place  under 
the  reign  of  Xerxes  I.  In  XL  1  seq.  he  gives,  in  like  man- 
ner, a  sketch  of  the  events  related  in  the  book  of  Esther ;  or 
rather,  we  might  say,  an  account  more  copious  even  than  that 
which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  All  these  events  he 
assigns  to  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  (Longimanus),  who  reign- 
ed more  than  forty  years  (464 — 424  B.  C).  The  Persian 
king  of  the  book  of  Esther,  is  uniformly  called  Ahasuerus.* 
At  what  time  during  the  reign  of  this  king,  the  deliverance  of 
the  Jews,  as  recorded  in  Esther,  took  place,  Josephus  does 
not  say.  I  must  believe,  however,  that  if  one  reads  carefully 
the  passage  from  him,  which  is  printed,  on  page  223  above,  he 
will  perceive  on  the  whole  that  it  makes  for  the  position,  that 
it  was  at  a  late  period  of  his  reign.  If  we  read  the  clause  : 
ano  ds  7ijg  Mcovatoog  raXevi^g  n^XQi  tfjg  JJqtu^^'q^ov  rov  nera 
AtQ^rjv  TleQGcov  ^ciGiltwg  cio)[)jg,  with  an  omission  of  the  final 
"word  «c//]i,',  (which  is  omitted  in  Eusebius  Ecc.  Hist.  III.  10, 
and  in  most  of  the  manuscripts  of  Josephus),  then  it  is  clear 

*  Josephus  seems  to  have  considered  Ahasuerus  as  the  proper  name  of 
only  one  Persian  king ;  whereas  it  is  plainly  an  appellative  ( Hke  Pha- 
raoh, the  Czar,  etc.),  and  belongs  to  Cainbyscs,  Ez.  4:  6,  and  to  Astyages 
the  father  of  Darius  tlic  Mede,  Dan.  9:  1.  The  meaning  of  the  name, 
as  developed  by  the  cuneiform  writing  recently  decyphered,  is  lion-king 
=  hero ;  see  in  Ges.  Lex. 


§  10.   COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.  229 

that  Joseplius  intends  to  fix  his  limit  at  the  death  of  Artax- 
erxes  (424  B.  C),  beyond  or  since  which  no  book  that  has 
been  written  has  any  just  claim  to  be  considered  as  a  part  of 
the  Hebrew  Canon.     The  manner  in  which  he  has  drawn  up 
his  account  of  these  times,  proves  beyond  a  doubt  that  he  re*- 
garded  the  book  of  Esther  as  the  last  in  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, as  well  as  that  he  considered  it  a  saci^edhook.     Beyond' 
this  and  further  on  he  draws  indeed  fi'om  other  histories  of 
the  Jews  ;  and  so  in  all  the  latter  part  of  his  Antiquities  ;  but 
he  compiles  here  much  more  loosely  than  before,  and  evidently 
proceeds  as  considering  himself  more  at  liberty  to  depart  froni 
his  sources,  as  we  may  learn  by  comparing  his  history,  e.  g. 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  with  that  in   1  Mace.     It  is  to  be 
deeply  regretted  that  he  has  not  given  us  a  particular  account 
of  his  sources,  as   he  had  the  fairest  opportunity  for  doing  it 
at  the  close  of  his  Antiquities,  XX.  11.2,  where  he  has  made 
a  statement  of  the  object  which  he  had  in  view  in  the  compo- 
sition of  his  work,  and  of  his  qualifications  to  accomplish  it. 
But  he  goes  no  farther  in  mentioning  his  sources  than  to  say, 
that  he  has  given  an  account  of  ancient  historical  events,  "  (og 
al  IsQai  ^f^Xoi  7T8QI  ndvtcov  ejovai  t^v  avayQacpf^v,  i.  e.  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  description  of  them  in  the  sacred  books ;" 
ib.  11.  2.     Of  the  estimation  in  which  he  held  books  subse- 
quent to  the  time  of  Esther,  he  has  given  us  an  account  in 
his  Cont.  Apion.  §  8,   as  stated  above.      After  having  said 
that  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Jews  were  ra  dixaiwg  dsTa 
7i87Tiai£VfA8va,  deservedly  regarded  as  divine,  he  says  of  the 
others,  written  after  the  time  of  Artaxerxes,  that  maTsmg  da 
0V1  ofioiug  ij^icorai  rijg  ttqo  avTOJV,  i.  e.  that  they  are  not 
worthy  of  the  like  credit  with  those  before  them.     In  respect 
to  his  qualifications  for  writing  his  Antiquities,  he  says,  in  a 
modest  way  (XX.   11.  2),  that  "he  was  acknowledged  by 
most  of  his  countrymen  as  excelling  in  a  knowledge  of  what 
belonged  to  their  country,  and  that  he  had  given  himself  to 
Greek  literature,  until  everything  but  the  niceties  of  pronun- 
ciation  was  familiar  to  him."     He  says,  moreover,  that  the 
study  of  Greek  literature  was  disreputable  among  his  coun- 

20 


230        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

trymen ;  and  for  this  reason,  not  more  than  some  two  or  three 
besides  himself  had  attained  to  any  eminence  in  it.  Of  his 
knowledge  of  Hehreiv,  the  fact  that  he  was  employed  as  in- 
terpreter by  Vespasian  and  Titus,  and  the  fact  that  he  first 
wrote  his  Jewish  Wars  in  Hebrew,  are  sufficient  evidence. 
That  he  was  a  highly  intelligent  Jewish  priest,  would  of  itself 
be  a  sufficient  pledge. 

We  will  suppose  now  that  the  opinion  of  Josephus  was 
merely  the  result  of  his  private  judgment  in  regard  to  the  or- 
der of  the  book  of  Esther.  Let  it  be  that  Chronicles,  Nehe- 
miah  and  Malachi  are  later ;  all  this  wdll  not  affect  the  ques- 
tion now  before  us.  Josephus  does  not  specificate  any  par- 
ticular time  during  the  long  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  w^hen  the 
events  related  in  Esther  took  place,  nor  when  the  book  was 
written.  There  might  be  sufficient  time,  for  aught  we  know 
to  the  contrary,  for  writing  those  several  books  after  Esther 
was  written,  and  yet  before  the  death  of  Artaxerxes.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  book  of  Esther  may  have  been  written  after 
them,  and  therefore  the  last  of  all,  even  in  case  the  events 
which  it  commemorates,  had  happened  some  time  before  they 
were  written  down.  The  probability  as  to  matter  of  fact 
seems  to  be,  that  the  events  commemorated  in  Esther  hap- 
pened during  the  reign  of  Xerxes  I.,  inasmuch  as  he  was  a 
king  whose  character  well  fitted  him  for  such  actions  as  are 
ascribed  to  the  Persian  monarch  in  the  book  of  Esther.  In 
this  respect  Josephus  may  have  formed  an  erroneous  judg- 
ment. Still,  there  is  nothing  in  the  book  of  Esther,  which  of 
itself  will  determine  the  date  of  the  work.  The  events  which 
it  commemorates  commenced,  indeed,  in  the  third  year  of 
AhasueruSj  w^hoever  he  was  ;  but  how  long  they  were  in  pro- 
gress, if  we  include  the  whole  of  them,  is  not  quite  certain ; 
and  of  course  we  cannot  decide  exactly  as  to  the  age  of  the 
book  itself.  But  in  respect  to  Nehemiah,  w^e  know  that  he 
went  a  second  time  from  Persia  to  Palestine,  in  the  thirty- 
second  year  of  Artaxerxes ;  Neh.  13:  G.  Josephus  must  have 
read  this  book,  therefore,  without  due  regard  to  the  notations 
of  time,  since  he  represents  the  death  of  Nehemiah  as  taking 


§  10.    COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.  231 

place  under  Xerxes  L,  Antiq.  11.  5.  8,  whose  reign  lasted 
only  21  years.  But  anachronisms  in  Josephus  are  no  strange 
thing. 

But  be  it  that  Josephus  has  erred,  as  to  the  reign  under  which 
the  events  recorded  in  the  book  of  Esther  took  place,  it  does 
not  at  all  affect  the  statement  which  he  has  made,  in  a  man- 
ner so  explicit  and  ample,  that  the  certain  succession  of  pro- 
phets ceased  with  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes.  Much  dispute  there 
has  been  about  the  meaning  of  dxQi^tj  in  the  phrase  //?)  .  .  . 
a^iQi^ri  diadoyijP  as  applied  to  the  prophets.  To  me  it  seems, 
that  the  simple  meaning  of  Josephus  is,  that  the  succession  of 
any  prophet,  after  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  to  the  series  of 
earlier  prophets,  who  wrote  the  sacred  books,  is  uncertain, 
i.  e.  it  was  a  thing  which,  although  some  might  regard  it  as 
true,  in  his  judgment  and  in  that  of  his  countrymen  (for  he 
speaks  their  views)  could  not  be  established  or  rendered  cer- 
tain. Of  course,  as  he  regarded  those  books  only  as  canoni- 
cal, which  were  composed  by  prophets,  or  men  of  a  prophetic 
spirit,  there  could  be  no  good  ground  for  admitting  any  book, 
after  the  period  just  named,  as  canonical.  /Iiadopiv  does  not 
mean  series  or  ordo,  as  it  has  often  been  translated,  but  the 
succession  of  one  thing  or  person  after  another  of  the  like  kind. 
^A'AQi^l^g  (from  axQog,  pointed,  sharp,  and  this  from  axi;,  point 
sharpness),  literally  means  pointed,  sharp,  but  figuratively  (as 
in  the  case  before  us)  exact,  certain.  This  view  of  the  words 
accords  entirely  with  the  explanation  given  above. 

It  has  been  said  by  those  who  feel  an  interest  in  fixing  up- 
on a  later  period  for  the  closing  of  the  0.  Test,  canon,  that 
Josephus  cannot  mean  to  assert,  what  is  here  attributed  to 
him,  because  he  himself  attributes  to  John  Hyrcanus  (prince 
and  high  priest,  135 — 107  B.  C.)  the  gift  o^ prophecy.  Jose- 
phus, who  is  loud  in  the  praises  of  Hyrcanus,  does  say  of  him, 
indeed,  that  "he  alone  obtained  the  three  most  excellent  things, 
viz.  the  principality  of  the  nation,  the  high  priesthood,  aal 
7iQoq)i]Ttiav,  and  the  gift  of  prophecy."  In  order  to  confirm 
the  last  declaration  he  adds  :  "  For  the  divinity  (ro  datfto- 
nov)  was  conversant  with  him,  so  that  he  was  ignorant  of 


232        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

nothing  which  was  to  come ;"  Jos.  Bell.  Jud.  I.  2.  8.  But 
let  the  reader  observe,  that  Josephus  says  of  John  Hyrcanus, 
that  he  alone  attained  to  such  a  union  of  gifts  as  he  mentions, 
and  that  the  stress  of  this  affirmation  falls  on  proj^hecy  is  plain 
enough  tVom  the  fact,  that  many  others  united  in  their  per- 
sons the  office  of  ruler  and  high  priest,  and  from  the  immedi- 
ate explanation  which  Josephus  himself  gives  of  what  he  had 
meant  specially  to  assert.  Besides,  although  Josephus  ad- 
mits of  dream-interpreters,  (e.  g.  Simon  of  the  Essenes,  An- 
tiq.  xvii.  13.  3),  and  various  prognosticators,*  specially  dur- 
ing the  period  near  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  yet  it  is  plain 
enough,  that  after  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  he  never  intro- 
duces any  one  in  the  character  of  an  O.  Test,  prophet.  It  is 
plain,  too,  in  respect  to  the  case  of  Hyrcanus,  that  the  gift  of 
prophecy  is  ascribed  to  him  rather  in  a  way  of  post  mortem 
eulogy,  than  of  accurate  and  earnest  historical  narration.  At 
all  events,  Josephus  makes  no  allusion  to  any  written  prophe- 
cies of  Hyrcanus,  so  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  case  of  this 
individual,  which  can  come  in  competition  with  the  claims  of 
the  earlier  Hebrew  prophets ;  nothing  indeed  which  contra- 

*  In  Antiq.  XV.  10. 5,  Josephus  introduces  one  Mcnahem,  of  the  Es- 
senes, as  prognosticating  the  future  dominion  and  fortunes  of  Herod, 
and  says  of  him  that  "  Trpoyvcjaiv  Ik  ■&£ov  tuv  /i£A?.6vrcjv  tx^^v^  i.  e.  he 
had  from  God  a  foreknowledge  of  future  things.  Again  (ib.)  he  says  of 
the  Essenes,  that  "  many  of  them,  on  account  of  their  good  and  honest 
life,  were  honoured  with  skill  in  divine  things."  In  Bell.  Jud.  11.  8.  12, 
he  says  of  the  Essenes  :  "  There  are  among  them  those  who  profess  to 
foretell  future  tilings  ;"  and  in  the  sequel  he  subjoins  :  "  Seldom  do  they 
err  in  their  prognostications."  In  Bell.  Jud.  I.  3.  5,  he  relates  a  pi-edic- 
tion  of  Judas,  one  of  the  Essenes,  "  who  never  lapsed  or  spoke  falsely  in 
his  predictions."  In  Bell.  Jud.  II.  7. 3,  one  Simon,  of  the  same  sect,  is 
introduced  as  a  prognosticator.  All  these  cases  are  of  the  same  charac- 
ter. The  Essenes,  who  were  of  a  contemplative  and  enthusiastic  turn  of 
mind,  gave  their  attention  to  prognostication,  and  obtained  uncommon 
skill  in  it.  Many  cases  of  the  like  nature  are  to  be  found  among  most 
nations,  and  in  every  age.  Josephus,  no  doubt,  was  a  believer  in  their 
occasional  extraordinary  gift  of  foresight ;  but  still  it  is  easy  to  see,  that, 
with  all  his  wouder  at  their  attainments  in  "  second  sight,"  he  neither 
thinks  nor  speaks  of  them  as  being  prophets  in  the  sense  ux  which  the  an- 
cient Hebrew  prophets  were. 


§  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.        233 

diets  or  is  opposed  to  the  true  spirit  and  meaning  of  wliat 
he  says  in  Cont.  Apion.  I.  8.  What  he  there  declares  is, 
that  there  was  no  proof  of  the  existence  of  any  prophet  (after 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes)  who  was  the  author  of  a  canonical 
or  holy  book — that  no  pretended  succession  of  such  a  nature 
to  the  former  prophets,  was  certain,  dxQi^tj.  What  he  says 
of  John  Hyrcanus,  or  of  any  other  individuals  as  prognosti- 
cators  or  the  like,  does  not  contradict  this,  and  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  it. 

Thus  much  for  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  in  regard  to  the 
terminus  ad  quern  of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  But  as  this  is  a 
point  of  great  importance,  (at  least  it  strikes  me  in  this  light), 
we  must  see  what  others  have  said  and  thought,  as  well  as 
Josephus,  in  relation  to  this  matter. 

The  author  of  the  first  book  of  the  Maccabees,  (written  not 
long  after  the  death  of  Simon,  about  135  B.  C),  when  de- 
scribing the  calamities  that  came  upon  Judea,  in  consequence 
of  the  death  of  Judas  Maccabaeus,  says  (9:  27),  that  "  there 
was  great  affliction  in  Israel,  such  as  was  not  ol<^  -riq  r^iitQag 
OVA  cacf&t]  7ZQoq)rjtr^g  iv  avzoig,  from  the  time  since  no  prophet 
made  his  appearance  among  themJ'  Comp.  Jos.  Antiq.  XIII. 
1,  where,  in  describing  the  same  events  he  says,  "  the  Jews 
had  not  experienced  so  great  calamity  ^pza  rrjv  Ba^vXojvog 
iTtdvodov,  since  the  return  from  Babylon."  That  the  author 
of  Maccabees  means  as  much  as  to  say  for  a  very  long  time, 
is  altogether  plain  and  evident.  In  his  day,  then,  it  was 
counted  a  lo7ig  time  since  any  prophet  had  appeared  among 
the  Jews.  From  the  time  of  this  author  back  to  the  time  of 
Artaxerxes,  is  about  300  years. 

In  1  Mace.  4:  46,  the  Jews,  who  had  been  removing  the 
stones  of  the  altar  in  the  temple  which  had  been  profaned  by 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  are  represented  as  laying  them  aside, 
*'  jttf/O*  '^^'^  TTUQayEVT^d'ijvai  7TQoq)^r7]v  rov  d7zonQix}ijvai  tzeqI 
avtMv,  until  the  coming  of  some  prophet  to  decide  respecting 
them,"  viz.  to  decide  what  should  be  done  with  them.  In 
1  Mace.  14:  41  it  is  said,  that  "  Simon  was  constituted  leader 
and  high  priest  forever,  until  tov  dvaarijvai  7iQoq)i^tt]v  m<jz6v, 

20* 


234        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

some  faithful  prophet  should  arise  ;"  thus  intimating  plainly, 
that  they  knew  of  no  such  one  at  that  time,  but  expected  one 
in  future  ;  i.  e.  (as  I  apprehend)  the  Messiah. 

That  Malachi  (fl.  430 — 424),  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes, 
was  the  last  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  at  all  events  the  last 
who  bore  any  comparison  with  the  old  Hebrew  prophets,  is 
a  point  that  has  been  almost  universally  conceded  by  such  as 
had  no  particular  purpose  to  accomplish,  by  making  out  a 
different  representation.  "  With  this  prophet,"  says  Kuobel 
in  his  recent  Prophetismus  (II.  p.  365),  "  the  Old  Testament 
prophetic  office  expires."  The  author  of  the  famous  Rab- 
binical book  Cosri  (Pars  III.  §  65),  speaking  of  the  series  of 
prophets,  says,  that  "  Those  which  remained  of  them,  after 
the  return  to  the  temple  [from  Babylon],  were  Haggai,  Zech- 
ariah,  Ezra,  etc.  In  Seder  01am  Zuther,  foL  35  col.  2,  the 
writer  says :  "  In  the  fifty-second  year  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians,  died  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi ;  at  the  same 
time  prophecy  ceased  from  Israel."  The  Rabbinic  author  of 
this  book,  with  most  of  the  earlier  Jewish  Chronologists, 
supposes  the  Persian  empire  to  have  lasted  only  fifty-two 
years,  instead  of  more  than  200,  which  is  the  real  state  of  the 
case.  The  rest  of  his  affirmation,  is  in  unison  with  the  gen- 
eral voice.  Jerome  (Comm.  on  Isa.  49:  21)  says,  in  a  meta- 
phrase which  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  Jewish  church  : 
"  Quis'  mihi  istos  genuit  ?  .  . .  Post  Aggaeum,  Zachariam,  et 
Malachiam,  nullos  alios  prophetas  usque  ad  Johannem  Bap- 
tistam  videram ;"  i.  e.  Who  hath  begotten  me  these  ? ... 
Since  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi ;  I  have  seen  no  other 
prophets  down  to  John  the  Baptist."  So  Augustine :  "  During 
all  that  period  since  they  [the  Jews]  returned  from  Babylon, 
after  Malachi,  Haggai,  and  Zechariah,  7ion  habuerunt  Proj)he- 
tas  usque  ad  Salvatoris  advent  am,  i.  e.  they  had  no  prophets 
until  the  advent  of  the  Saviour  ;"  De  Civ.  Dei,  XVII.  24. 
That  the  agreement  of  the  ancients  is  all  but  universal,  in 
respect  to  this  matter,  no  one  acquainted  with  critical  history 
will  pretend  to  question. 

If  there  be  any  uncertainty,  after  all,  as  to  the  time  when 


§  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.  235 

Malachi  lived,  it  may  be  removed  to  any  one's  satisfaction 
who  will  take  the  pains  to  compare  this  writer  with  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah.  (a)  As  to  breaches  of  the  Law  by  priests  and  Le- 
vites  in  taking  foreign  wives  ;  Mai.  3: 10,  comp.  Ez.9: 1.  Neh. 
13:  23—29.  (b)  Withholding  tithes  from  Levites  ;  Mai  3: 10, 
comp.  Neh.  13:  10 — 12.  (c)  Neglect  of  divine  worship; 
Mai.  1:  13.  2:  8,  comp.  Neh.  13:  15  seq.  (d)  The  applica- 
tion of  iiriQ,  praefect,  to  Nehemiah  the  then  present  gover- 
nor of  Jerusalem,  shows  that  Malachi  could  not  have  lived  af- 
ter Nehemiah  ;  for  he  was  the  last  ruler  there  who  bore  the 
title  in  question  ;  [tins  =  the  modern  Pasha'].  That  Malachi 
lived  after  the  temple  was  completed,  and  of  course  after  the 
time  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  is  shown  by  Mai.  1:  10.  3:  1, 
10.  That  he  was  regarded  as  the  last  of  the  Hebrew  pro- 
phets, is  shown  by  the  place  assigned  to  his  book,  which 
closes  the  series  of  the  prophets. 

I  cannot  refrain  here  from  reminding  the  reader,  how  very 
inconsistent  this  historical  development  in  regard  to  the  ces- 
sation of  the  prophetic  gift  during  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus,  is  with  the  favourite  theory  of  De  Wette  and 
most  of  the  so-called  liberal  critics,  viz.,  that  the  book  of  Dan- 
iel was  written  during  the  Maccabaean  times  of  trouble,  and 
after  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  whose  history  it  gives. 
How  could  the  writer  of  1  Mace,  say,  at  the  close  of  these 
distressing  times,  that  there  was  no  prophet  in  Israel,  in  case 
a  new  prophetical  book  had  then  just  made  its  appearance,  and 
been  received  by  the  Jews  as  authentic  ?  Or  was  it,  that  the 
Jews,  in  order  to  admit  the  claims  of  the  newly  written  book, 
were  persuaded  by  the  writer  to  believe,  that  the  true  work 
of  Daniel,  which  had  lain  in  concealment  some  three  and 
a  half  centuries,  was  now  first  brought  into  the  light  and 
edited  by  him  ?  One  or  the  other  of  these  positions  must  be 
true,  viz.,  either  that  there  was  a  prophet  at  that  period,  (con- 
trary to  the  book  of  Maccabees,  inconsistent  with  the  repre- 
sentations of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  and  at  variance  with  the 
declarations  of  Josephus  and  the  voice  of  all  antiquity),  whose 
authority  could  give  authenticity  to  the  book,  or  else  the  for- 


236  §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

gery  must  have  been  accomplished  with  so  much  dexterity  as 
to  mislead  the  whole  of  the  Jewish  people.  These  consider- 
ations are  serious  draw-backs  from  the  capital  of  all  the  Lib- 
erals, in  regard  to  the  time  when  the  book  of  Daniel  was 
written. 

But  to  return  to  our  theme;  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  dealings 
of  providence  with  the  Jews,  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  religious 
instruction,  are  worthy  of  particular  consideration.  When  the 
Hebrews  had  no  synagogues,  and  scarcely  any  copies  of  the 
Scriptures  that  were  current  among  them,  then  were  com- 
missioned that  distinguished  order  of  rehgious  teachers,  the 
b'lK^:;?  and  the  d'^s^in .  The  only  copy  extant  of  the  Law  of 
Moses  might  indeed  be  hidden  in  the  temple,  (as  in  the  time 
of  Josiali),  and  yet  there  must  have  remained  adequate  or 
competent  teachers  of  true  religion,  guided  by  the  Spirit  of 
all  wisdom  and  knowledge.  The  Jews,  after  their  exile,  were 
so  well  satisfied  of  the  sin  and  folly  of  idolatry,  that  they  used 
efficient  means  to  guard  in  future  against  it ;  and  these  were 
the  multiplication  of  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
erection  of  synagogues,  where  the  holy  books  were  read  every 
sabbath-day.  When  this  custom  was  fully  established,  the 
order  of  prophets  ceased.  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  institu- 
tion of  synagogues  was  introduced,  either  in  the  latter  pe- 
riod of  the  life  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  or  very  soon  after 
their  death.  The  Scriptures  themselves,  which  were  thus 
read  every  sabbath,  occupied  the  place  of  the  earlier  prophets. 
It  would  seem,  since  the  Law  made  nothing  perfect  and  was 
only  a  dawning  toward  the  gospel-day,  that  providence  with- 
held one  of  the  modes  of  instruction,  to  which  I  have  advert- 
ed, during  the  time  that  the  other  was  in  full  force  ;  while 
under  the  gospel  both  methods  are  employed  in  combination, 
and  with  much  greater  success. 

Let  me  be  indulged  in  one  remark  more,  before  I  dismiss 
the  present  topic.  How  came  it  about,  that  the  Jewish  na- 
tion, among  whom  were  prophets  from  the  time  of  Moses 
down  to  that  of  Malachi  (about  a  thousand  years),  should  all 
at  once  cease  to  have  them  at  this  latter  period  ?    It  is  a  con- 


§  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.         237 

ceded  point,  that  whatever  one  or  another  might  say  of  this 
or  that  fortune-teller  or  prognosticator,  at  the  later  period, 
yet  no  such  persons  as  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos, 
and  the  like,  appeared  among  the  Hebrews  for  about  four 
centuries  before  the  Christian  era.     Had  the  Jews  become 
so  enlightened  at  this  period,  as  no  longer  to  give  ear  to  the 
pretensions  of  prophets  ?  as  Neology  often  and  not  obscurely 
"intimates.     Or  was  there  no  true  zeal  for  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions, and  for  the  customs  of  the  fathers,  and  no  longer  any 
desire  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  future  events  ?     "What  had 
become  of  the  pride  and  glorying  of  the  Jews  in  the  order  of 
prophets,  as  showing  their  superiority  over  all  other  nations  ? 
These  and  the  like  questions  may  be  urged  with  the  more 
force,  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  pretence  that  the  Jews,  after 
returning  from  their  exile,  ever  relapsed  into  their  love  of 
heathen  idolatry.     Unless  it  were  matter  of  fact,  that  the  or- 
der of  prophets  ceased  with  Malachi,  I  see  no  way  of  ac- 
counting for  the  universal  impression  among  the  Jews  that 
such  was  the  case.     How  could  they  be  brought  to  disclaim 
a  matter  of  so  much  precedence  and  honour  to  their  nation, 
in  any  way  excepting  by  the  impossibility  of  establishing  any 
valid  claims  to  an  order  of  prophets  beyond  the  period  of 
Malachi  ?     I  must  regard  it,  therefore,  as  one  of  the  best  es- 
tablished facts  in  their  ancient  religious  history,  that  the  order 
of  prophets  ceased  at,  or  very  near,  the  close  of  the  reign  of 
Ai'taxerxes  Longimanus,  i.  e.  near  to  424  B.  C. 

At  all  events  this  cannot  be  gainsayed,  viz.,  that  we  have 
no  credible  testimony  to  the  contrary.  It  cannot  be  contro- 
verted, that  Josephus,  the  most  enlightened  man  at  that  time 
of  the  Hebrew  nation,  as  to  its  antiquities  and  history,  gives 
it  as  the  estabUrihed  opinion  of  that  nation,  that  for  some  four 
hundred  years  they  had  had  no  prophets  who  wrote  Scrip- 
tures, or  who  could  properly  have  the  credit  of  being  sacred 
writers.  All  the  writers  subsequent  to  the  reign  of  Artax- 
erxes  he  explicitly  distinguishes,  as  to  the  credit  due  to  them, 
from  the  prophets  who  preceded ;  Tiiazsojg  ds  ovh  ofioiag  ^^i- 
(otai  ryg  tzqo  avTCJV.     Nor  is  this  all     He  says,  in  the  same 


238        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

connection,  that  "  although  so  great  a  length  of  time  has 
elapsed,  [since  the  days  of  the  ancient  prophets],  no  one  has 
dared  to  add  anything  to  them,  or  to  take  anything  from 
them,  nor  to  alter  anything."  How  could  this  be,  if  many 
Psalms,  and  the  book  of  Daniel,  not  to  mention  smaller  por- 
tions of  many  other  books,  have  been  added,  as  the  liberal 
critics  aver,  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  or  even  later  ?  A 
matter  so  recent  as  the  events  of  the  Maccabaean  times,  and 
especially  a  matter  of  so  great  importance  as  that  of  augment- 
ing the  holy  Scriptures — how  could  it  have  failed  to  be  known 
to  Josephus,  so  thoroughly  versed  as  he  was  in  the  history  of 
his  nation  ?  But  not  a  word  of  this  nature  from  him.  And 
yet  he  was  under  strong  temptation,  in  writing  his  history,  to 
show  that  the  importance  and  precedence  of  the  Jews  had 
not  suffered  any  degi-adation  or  decrease  in  later  periods. 
Still,  in  spite  of  this  feeling  so  natural  to  the  human  breast, 
in  spite  of  all  his  patriotic  ardor,  he  most  amply  asserts  that 
the  end  of  Artaxerxes'  reign  was  the  close  of  the  prophetic 
order  of  his  countrymen.  The  impartiality  of  the  testimony 
adds  much  to  the  regard  which  is  due  to  it.  If  the  witness 
be  interested,  it  is  that  he  should  say  things  to  the  honour  of 
his  nation  which  he  does  not  say.  And  how  should  the 
proud  and  vain-glorious  and  boasting  Jews  of  his  time  be- 
Heve  en  masse,  that  no  prophets  had,  for  centuries,  risen 
among  them  ?  It  is  very  difficult,  at  least,  to  answer  these 
questions  on  any  ground,  except  that  which  admits  the  truth 
of  Josephus'  asseverations. 

We  may  also  ask  other  questions,  in  respect  to  the  intro- 
duction and  reception  of  new  books  during  this  period.  Of 
all  the  nations  of  whom  history  has  given  any  account,  the 
Jews  have  been  the  most  conservative  and  immutable.  Sub- 
dued and  nearly  destroyed  by  Vespasian  and  Titus,  the  rem- 
nant were,  and  from  that  time  have  continued  to  be,  scattered 
over  the  face  of  the  whole  earth.  Never  have  they  had  a 
dominion  or  government  or  country  of  their  own.  But  after 
1800  years  have  past,  what  are  they  now  ?  The  mass  is  just 
what  they  were  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  bigotted  fanatics 


§  10.    COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.  239 

who  are  zealous  in  "  tithing  mint,  anise,  and  ciirain,"  and 
excessively  attached  to  all  the  rites  and  forms  that  have  come 
down  to  them  by  tradition,  standing  alone  amidst  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  unmingled  and  incapable  of  being  mingled 
with  the  people  among  whom  they  live.  No  nation  on  earth 
ever  exhibited  such  a  uniformity  of  chai-acter,  and  such  a 
tenacity  of  traditions.  Indeed,  their  separate  and  distinct 
existence,  without  any  approach  to  amalgamation  with  other 
nations,  is  in  itself  a  standing  miracle,  an  exception  to  all 
analogies  among  the  human  race.  Have  they  added  to,  or 
diminished  from,  their  Scriptures  during  all  this  period  of 
1800  years  ?  Not  in  the  least.  Their  Rabbies  have  indeed 
introduced  the  Mishna  and  the  Talmud,  and  commended 
them  to  the  study  of  all.  But  they  have  never  assayed  to 
join  these  to  their  canon  of  Scripture,  or  to  mingle  them 
therewith.     Their  Bible  has  remained  inviolate. 

Is  this  the  people  then,  who,  a  short  time  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  stood  on  the  alert  to  admit  new  and  unheard  of  books 
into  their  sacred  canon  ?  After  enduring  all  the  persecutions 
of  Antiochus  on  account  of  their  rehgion,  just  at  the  close  of 
such  a  period  would  they  have  admitted  a  new  book  among 
those  for  which  they  were  ready  to  die  even  joyfully — a  book 
purporting  to  have  been  written  by  a  man  at  the  head  of  the 
court,  when  the  decree  of  liberation  from  exile  went  forth, 
and  which  still  had  never  made  its  appearance  before,  during 
nearly  four  centuries  ?  How  any  one  can  be  so  yielding  as 
to  give  a  ready  assent  to  historical  statements  so  utterly  im- 
probable, and  yet,  on  account  of  a  few  critical  difficulties,  be- 
come so  entirely  skeptical  and  incredulous  as  to  the  claims  of 
this  book — is  a  phenomenon  that  even  neology  would  find  it 
difficult  to  account  for,  although  its  disciples  in  general  take 
such  a  position. 

Nor  is  even  this  all  that  may  be  said  about  the  later  admis- 
sion of  books  into  the  Canon  of  Hebrew  Scriptures.     When 
did  the  rigid  and  punctilious  and  unchanging  sect  of  the  Pha- 
'  risees  take  its  rise  ?     Was  it  not  between  the  time  of  Arta- 
xerxes  and  the  Christian  era  ?     On  what   ground  did   this 


240        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

sect  stand  ?     On   the   ground  of  inflexible  adherence  to  the 
traditions  of  the  fathers.    And  is  it  not  one  of  those  traditions, 
as  Josephus  has  stated  it,  not  to  add  to,  diminish  from,  or  al- 
ter, the  sacred  books  ?  In  Antiq.  XYIII.  1.  2,  Josephus  says 
of  the  three  sects  among  the  Jews,  viz.,  Pharisees,  Sadducees, 
and  Essenes,  that  they  had  existed  iy.  tov  nurv  dnyaiov  rmv 
TTazQicor,  i.  e.  from  the  very  ancient  times  of  the  fathers.  Un- 
der Jonathan  a  Maccabaean  prince   (159 — 144  B.  C),  he 
speaks  of  this  sect  as  being  in  full  vigour  ;  Antiq.  XIII.  5.  9. 
That  their  origin  lies  so  much  in  obscurity,  is  in  itself  a  cir- 
cumstance which  shows  their  antiquity.     The  famous  John 
Hyi'canus,  so  much  extolled  by  Josephus,  being  traduced  by 
one  of  the  Pharisees,  abandoned  this  sect  to  which  he  had 
belonged,  and  went  over  to  the  Sadducees ;  as  Josephus  re- 
lates in  Antiq.  XIII.  10.  5,  6.     On  this  occasion  the  histori- 
an says  of  the  Pharisees,  that  "  they  had  so  much  influence 
with  the  people,  as  to  be  credited  even  when  they  spoke  any- 
thing against  the  king  or  the  high  priest."  Did  this  sect,  then, 
admit  a  new  book  among  their  Scriptures  ?     Or  if  they  had 
done  so,  would  they  not  have  been  opposed  and  exposed  by 
the   Sadducees,  who  were  strict  Scri2:>turists,  i.  e.  strenuous 
advocates  of  the  sentiment,  that  we  must  abide  by  the  Scrip- 
tures only,  without  any  of  the  traditions  of  men  superadded  ? 
Plainly  it  was  as  much  impossible  to  introduce  a  new  book 
(e.  g.  Daniel),  or  new  Psalms,  at  such  a  period  of  sectarian 
jealousy  and  dispute,  as  it  would  now  be  to  introduce  an  ad- 
dition to  the  New  Testament,  among  the  contending  sects  of 
Christians.    Whatever  may  be  said  by  critics  about  their  diffi- 
culties in  respect  to^he  earlier  composition  of  the  book  of  Dan- 
iel, they  can  never  meet  and  overcome  the  insuperable  obsta- 
cles which  the  history  of  the  religious  state  of  things  in  the 
Maccabaean  times  throws  in  their  way.     And  if  the  sects  of 
Jews    described   by  Josephus,  and  apparent  throughout  the 
New  Testament,  were,  as  he  avers,  ix  rov  Tidrv  aQyalov  tmv 
natQuov,  then  is  the  probability  of  new  books  being  introdu- 
ced into  the  sacred  canon  after  the  time  of  Malachi,  a  matter 
utterly  incapable  of  being  made  out. 


§  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON.        241 

If  indeed  we  are  still  urged  by  critics  to  admit  the  later 
addition  of  books  to  the  sacred  canon,  why,  I  would  ask,  was 
not  Jesus  Sirachides  admitted  ?  In  Sirach.  50:  27  he  says  : 
"  I  have  written  the  instruction  of  understanding  and  know- 
ledge in  this  book,  I  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  of  Jerusalem, 
who  poured  forth  wisdom  from  his  heart."  Nor  is  this  his 
only  claim  ;  for  he  goes  on  to  say :  "  Blessed  is  he  who  shall 
occupy  himself  with  these  things,  and  whosoever  lays  them- 
up  in  his  mind  shall  become  wise.  For  if  he  shall  do  these 
things,  he  shall  become  all-powerful,  for  his  footsteps  shall  be 
in  the  light  of  the  Lord."  This  is  a  high  claim.  Few  of 
the  biblical  writers  have  made  a  higher  one.  But  this  is  not 
all.  In  24:  32 — 34  he  says  :  "  I  will  radiate  forth  instruction 
as  the  morning  light,  and  disclose  those  things  far  away.  I 
will  pour  forth  instruction  2i^ prophecy,  I  will  leave  it  to  future 
generations.  Behold,  I  have  not  laboured  for  myself  only, 
but  for  all  those  who  seek  for  it"  [instruction].  In  30:  16 — 
18,  he  represents  himself  as  gleaning  after  others  (Solomon), 
and  goes  on  to  say  :  "  Consider  that  I  have  not  laboured  for 
myself,  but  for  all  those  who  receive  instruction.  Hear  me, 
ye  chieftains  of  the  people,  and  ye  who  lead  in  the  assem- 
blies, give  ear."  Now  as  we  know  from  the  preface  to  this 
work  that  it  was  written  in  Hebrew,  and  by  a  Jew  of  Jerusa- 
lem peculiarly  devoted  to  sacred  studies,  and  written  before 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  to  say  the  least,  what  should  have 
prevented  the  reception  of  such  a  book  into  the  Jewish  canon, 
in  case  the  Hebrews  were  not  adverse  to  making  any  addi- 
tions of  this  nature  ?  The  book  exhibits  a  morality  that  is 
pure  and  elevated  ;  the  style  has  a  strong  resemblance  to  parts 
of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  great 
regard  was  entertained  for  the  work  by  the  Jews  in  Egypt, 
where  the  grand-son  of  Jesus  found  it  and  translated  it.  The 
Romanists  extol  it  much,  and  assign  good  reasons,  as  they 
think,  for  the  reception  of  it  into  their  deutero-canon.  To 
me  it  seems,  that  if  the  Jews  were  in  such  a  state,  in  the  Mac- 
cabaean  times,  as  to  admit  a  forged  Daniel  and  recently  com- 
posed Psalms  into  their  canon  ;  and,  in  a  word,  if  they  had 

21 


242        §  10.  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON. 

no  more  religious  zeal  and  no  more  knowledge  than  all  this 
implies  ;  the  Book  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  must  have  taken  the 
place  which  the  above  passages  quoted  from  it  seem  })lainly 
to  claim.  No  Romanist  or  Neologist  can  give  a  satisfactory 
reason,  why  the  Jews  did  not  admit  it.  On  the  other  hand  ; 
admitting  the  truth  of  Josephus'  statement,  viz.,  that  since 
the  order  of  prophets  had  ceased,  no  book  was  admitted  into 
the  Jewish  canon,  then  all  becomes  plain  and  easy.  The 
Jews  could  not  admit  the  claims  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach, 
because  he  was  no  prophet.  On  the  like  ground  they  could 
not  admit  the  1  Mace,  into  their  canon,  although  a  very  credi- 
ble history  and  gravely  written,  and  composed  indeed  only  a 
short  time  after  the  book  of  Sirachides.  Scarcely  anything 
in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  history  is  a  matter  of  more 
interest,  to  one  who  seeks  after  a  historical  knowledge  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  than  the  I.  Maccabees.  It  covers  a  period  of 
forty  of  the  most  eventful  years  that  the  Jews  ever  experien- 
ced, and  exhibits  this  nation  in  the  most  interesting  of  all  at- 
titudes— contending  against  a  force  vastly  superior,  for  their 
God,  their  religion,  their  comitry,  and  their  homes.  Yet 
1  Mace,  never  had  any  place  in  the  Palestine  Jewish  canon, 
as  all  agree.  I  regard  it  as  equally  certain,  that  it  had  in 
reality  no  place  in  the  canon  proper  of  the  Egyj>tian  Jews,  at 
least  in  the  time  of  Philo  and  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  not- 
withstanding it  was  originally  written  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. Practically  the  Jews  followed  out  the  principle  which 
Josephus  states.  They  included  in  the  canon  those  prophetic 
or  inspired  writers,  whom  they  knew,  or  supposed  that  they 
knew,  to  have  lived  before  the  close  of  Artaxerxes'  reign. 
All  other  writers  they  left  to  stand  merely  upon  the  footing, 
to  which  the  aesthetical  or  historic  worth  of  their  works  enti- 
tled ihem. 

Mr.  Norton  has  suggested,  that  all  the  writings  of  the  He- 
brews, which  were  extant  at  the  time  of  return  from  the 
Babylonish  captivity,  were  collected  by  the  Jews,  and  com- 
bined in  their  so  called  Scriptures.  This  has  often  been  as- 
serted by  Neologists.     But  the  proof  of  this  has  not  yet  been 


§  10.    COMPLETION  OF  THE  CAKON.  243 

produced.  I  doubt  not  that  literature  among  the  Jews,  du- 
ring the  exile,  must  have  been  generally  in  a  low  state. 
But  as  it  will  not  be  contended,  that  the  Jews  were  unac- 
quainted with  the  art  of  writing  at  that  time,  so  I  cannot 
but  deem  it  quite  improbable,  that  nothing  was  written  dur- 
ing the  seventy  years'  captivity,  except  what  appears  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Is  it  probable  that  such  men  as  Sha- 
drach,  Meshech,  and  Abednego,  brought  up  at  the  court  of 
Babylon,  and  educated  in  all  the  Chaldean  discipline,  never 
wrote  anything?  Is  it  probable  that  such  men  as  Ezra,  Ne- 
hemiah,  and  Mordecai,  at  the  court  of  Persia,  never  wrote 
anything,  except  the  books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther, 
{if  these  are  to  be  attributed  to  them),  on  any  of  the  sub- 
jects which  must  be  of  interest  to  themselves  and  their  nation  ? 
And  Ezekiel  among  the  exiles  on  the  Chebar — was  he  the 
only  one  of  them  who  could  or  would  employ  his  pen  ?  I 
must  deem  this  to  be  quite  improbable.  But  if  these  men, 
and  other  persons  in  a  similar  condition  as  to  information, 
did  engage  in  the  composition  of  various  works — what  has  be- 
come of  them,  it  may  be  asked  ?  And  if  it  should  be,  the  an- 
swer is  not  very  difficult.  What  has  become  of  the  great  mass 
of  Greek  and  Roman  writings,  at  a  later  period  than  this  ? 
What  has  become  of  many,  and  some  very  distinguished,  works 
of  early  Christians?  All  devouring  time  has  accomplished 
their  destruction.  And  should  the  question  be  asked  still  fur- 
ther, how  some  of  the  Hebrew  books  came  to  survive,  while 
others  perished,  the  answer  is  not  unlike  that  which  might  be 
given  in  r<3gard  to  Greek  and  Roman  works,  viz.,  the  most 
important,  with  few  exceptions,  have  survived.  In  the  case 
of  the  Hebrews,  such  an  answer  may  be  given  a  fortiori. 
They  distinguished  between  books  sacred  and  those  which 
were  not  so.  The  relative  importance  of  the  former  to  a 
people  attached  to  their  ancient  religion,  will  not  be  denied. 
This  consideration  is  sufficient,  without  entering  upon  any 
comparison  of  an  aesthetical  nature,  between  sacred  and  other 
writings.  Indeed  we  cannot  do  this,  for  the  character  in  this 
respect  of  books  that  are  lost,  is  of  course  unknown  to  us.     If 


244  §  11.    ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON. 

it  be  asked :  Who  made  the  selection  of  books  that  are  pre- 
served ?  My  answer  would  be — prophets,  i.  e.  inspired  men. 
If  this  be  not  a  well  grounded  answer,  how  comes  it  about, 
that  the  reception  of  hooks  as  sacred  ceased  when  the  order  of 
prophets  ceased  ?  So  Josephus  directly  asserts  ;  and  the  his- 
tory of  the  canon,  so  far  as  we  can  trace  it,  corresponds  with 
this  assertion. 


§  11.  Evidence  that  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  ear- 
ly completed,  arising  from  the  ancient  divisions  of  it  which 
hore  specific  appellations. 

Every  reader  of  Hebrew  knows  familiarly  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures  as  presented  to  us,  (and  so  in  the  Hebrew 
Mss.  and  in  the  printed  editions  ever  since  the  art  of  printing 
was  discovered),  are  divided  into  three  parts,  viz.,  the  Law^ 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiography.  The  last  is  only  a  Greek 
name  which  we  have  borrowed ;  for  the  Hebrew  name  is 
C^n'rs ,  i.  e.  writings,  or  (which  is  equally  literal)  Scriptures. 
That  writings  par  excellence  or  sacred  writings,  are  meant 
by  this  appellation  is  clear ;  and  hence  the  Greek  name  Ha- 
giography, which  has  this  signification.  How  long  has  such  a 
division  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  been  made  ?  A  question 
of  no  small  importance ;  for  these  technical  appellations  of 
course  imply  a  well  ascertained  and  definite  number  of  books 
which  are  comprised  under  them.  Such  names  could  have 
no  tolerable  significancy,  on  the  ground  that  each  or  either 
division  was  left  in  a  floating  or  uncertain  condition.  Discre- 
pancies of  opinion  there  might  be,  in  time,  about  the  question, 
whether  this  or  that  book  belonged  to  this  class  or  that ;  but 
what  books  were  comprised  within  this  Corpus,  could  hardly 
have  been  a  question,  at  a  time  when  the  names  before  us 
were  definitely  applied.  Civilians  have  no  difficulty  in  be- 
lieving that  tlie  Pandects  of  Justinian  comprise  a  definite 
collection  of  ancient  Roman  laws,  nor  that  the  Novellae  of 
the  same  comprise  the  more  modern  laws  of  that  empire ;  al- 
though it  is  quite  possible,  that  the  claims  of  one  and  another 


§  il.   ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON.  245 

section  to  stand  under  the  former  or  latter  category,  might 
be  doubtful. 

We  begin  with  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Sirachides,  because 
it  is  the  oldest  to  which  we  have  access.  The  controversy 
about  the  age  of  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach  has  never  been  fully 
settled.  The  main  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact,  that  we  cannot 
ascertain  with  entire  certainty  two  personages  mentioned  in 
the  book.  In  chap.  1.  Simon  the  high  priest,  the  son  of  Oni- 
as,  is  highly  extolled  ;  and  in  the  preface  to  the  book  by  the 
translator,  who  was  the  grand-son  of  the  author,  he  says  that 
he  performed  his  work  of  translation  in  the  reign  of  [Ptole- 
my] Euergetes.  Now  it  so  happens,  that  there  were  two  Si- 
mons, both  high  priests,  and  both  sons  of  Onias ;  also  two 
Ptolemies  with  the  surname  of  Euergetes.  About  a  century 
elapsed  between  the  first  high  priest  and  king  and  the  second ; 
so  that  only  the  circumstances  adverted  to  in  the  book  can 
settle  the  question  of  its  age  with  probability.  The  current 
seems  recently  to  run  in  favor  of  the  latest  date,  which  would 
assign  the  composition  of  the  book  to  about  170  B.  C.  Its 
translation  by  the  grandson  of  the  author,  must  then  be  as- 
signed to  about  130  B.  C.  I  will  admit,  for  the  present,  the 
probability  of  the  later  dates ;  for  I  cannot  now  turn  aside  to 
discuss  the  question ;  and  I  do  not  wish,  in  fixing  on  the 
time,  to  go  beyond  what  critics  in  general  will  admit,  viz., 
that  the  book  must  have  been  originally  composed  before  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees.  It  is  impossible  to  believe,  had  it 
been  otherwise,  that  the  Maccabees  would  have  been  omitted 
in  the  eulogy  of  Hebrew  patriots  and  prophets,  contained  in 
chap,  xliv — 1,  and  more  especially  since  Simon  the  high  priest 
is  there  lauded  beyond  measure. 

In  respect  to  the  third  division  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures 
which  has  been  named  L"ri^r3  ==  yqacpai,  it  is  plain  that  on- 
ly by  the  use  of  the  article  with  such  a  name,  whether  in 
Greek,  Hebrew,  or  English,  could  it  have  been  made  specific. 
In  itself  the  word  is  generic,  and  may  be  applied  to  any  kind 
of  writings.     But  when  it  is  employed  in  connection  with  the 

21* 


246  §  11.   ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON. 

Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  has  also  the  definite  article  before 
it,  the  import  of  the  word  cannot  well  be  misunderstood. 

Thus  much  for  the  name  Kethuhim,  since  it  has  been  in- 
troduced. But  this  was  not  very  early.  We  first  meet  with 
it  in  E})iphanius,  who  translates  it  literally  by  yQacpeia ;  in 
Panario,  p.  58.  A  strictly  technical  name  the  third  portion 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  does  not  appear  to  have  had,  be- 
fore the  Christian  era,  or  during  the  early  part  of  it.  We 
shall  see,  that  while  the  other,  two  names  are  very  ancient, 
the  ancient  designation  of  the  now-named  Kethuhim  or  Ha- 
giography  was  very  various. 

In  the  preface  to  Sirach,  the  translator  states,  that .  many 
and  signal  had  been  the  benefits  conferred  on  the  Hebrew 
nation  "  by  the  Law,  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  other  [books] 
which  follow  in  the  same  spirit,  tmp  alXcov  rcov  'Aat  avzovg 
etKolovd^TjxoTGyv/'  Such  is  the  designation  of  the  triplex 
parts  of  the  Scriptures.  It  lacks  a  proper  name  for  the  third 
division*     See  the  whole  of  the  Preface  in  Appendix,  No.  I. 

Again,  in  the  same  preface,  the  writer  says,  that  "  his 
grandfather  .Jesus  applied  himself  stzI  tzXeiov,  for  a  long  time, 
or  very  much,  to  the  reading  of  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  of 
the  other  patrical  books,  zcov  dXXrav  natQicov  ^i^Ximv.''^  I  have 
made  a  new  adjective  here  which  rather  transfers  than  trans- 
lates the  Greek,  because  there  may  be  some  doubt,  perhaps, 
whether  the  writer  means  books  belonging  to  the  fathers,  i.  e. 
books  which  they  received,  or  books  of  which  the  fathers  were 
the  authors.  In  either  case  the  meaning  indeed  is  for  substance 
about  the  same,  or  nearly  so ;  but  at  all  events  and  plainly 
a  third  division  of  the  Scriptures,  not  comprehended  in  the 
two  preceding  ones,  is  here  designated,  although  not  by  a 
technical  name. 

Once  more,  speaking  of  a  variety  as  to  modes  of  expression 
in  different  languages,  he  says,  tliat  "  there  is  no  small  dif- 
ference, also,  among  the  books  belonging  to  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  koi  za  Xoma  tmv  ^i^Xicoy,  and  the  rest  or  remain- 
der of  the  boohs.^^  Here  is  still  another  designation  of  the 
third  division  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.     The  rest  of  the 


§  11.    ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON.  247 

hoohs  must  of  course  be  some  definite  or  weil  l^nown  remain- 
der of  tliem ;  else  the  readers  of  the  Preface  could  have  no 
definite  idea  of  what  the  writer  meant.  Indeed  xa  loind  is 
susceptible  of  no  other  certain  and  definite  meaning,  than 
such  an  one  as  I  have  just  assigned  to  it.  It  was  not  the 
object  of  the  translator,  to  assert  that  his  grandfather  gave 
himself  to  the  diligent  and  long  continued  reading  of  all  books 
without  distinction,  but  only  to  those  sacred  books  which 
would  particulai'lj  aid  him  in  the  composition  of  his  work. 
Moreover,  if  the  Lata  in  this  case  designates  a  definite  and 
well  known  portion  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  Prophets  ano- 
ther, (as  surely  they  do),  the  ta  Xoitzu  tojv  ^i^Xicov,  in  the  po- 
sition and  relation  in  which  it  stands,  must  also  be  equally 
definite  in  the  view  of  the  writer  and  reader  of  that  day.  Bi^- 
Ilcov,  then,  i.  e.  the  plural  of  ^i^Xiov,  is  here  used  just  as  we 
employ  the  word  Scriptures,  viz,  the  plural  form  of  the  word 
is  used  to  designate  the  idea,  that  the  book  as  a  whole  is 
made  up  of  many  separate  parts.  Both  Greeks  and  Latins, 
at  a  subsequent  period,  employed  ^i^lia  and  hiblia  to  denote 
the  volume  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  like  employing  the  Latin 
literae,  to  designate  a  single  epistle,  because  it  consists  of  ma- 
ny literae  united  together.  Of  course,  when  the  grandson  of 
Jesus  Sirachides  employs  ta  Xomd  xmv  ^i.pJxov^  he  uses  it 
just  as  we  should  use  the  phrase  the  rest  of  the  Scriptures, 
immediately  after  mentioning  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 
Of  necessity  this  has  a  definite  meaning ;  and  if  so,  the  Bible, 
at  that  time,  was  a  well  known  and  definite  book. 

I  will  not  affirm,  that  what  the  grandson  says  for  the  pur- 
pose of  designating  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  renders  it  certain 
that  these  designations  already  existed  in  the  time  of  the 
grandfather.  Yet  I  am  persuaded  that  his  words  imply  thus 
much.  At  all  events,  so  much  must  be  plain,  viz.  that  the 
grandson  means  to  tell  his  readers  what  and  how  many  books 
his  grandfather  diligently  studied.  If  the  names  which  he 
employs  in  order  to  describe  them  were  not  in  use  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  Sirachides,  yet  there  must  have  been  some  circum- 
scription to  the  limits  of  the  original  author's  study,  and 


248  §  11.   ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON. 

some  expressions  which  would  mark  it  as  a  well  known  and 
definite  circle  of  reading.  Such  being  the  case,  in  the  days 
of  Sirachides  the  Hebrew  Bible  must  have  already  attained 
to  a  definite  whole  or  corpus. 

But  is  there  not  something  in  the  book  itself,  a,s  it  came 
from  the  pen  of  Sirachides,  which  speaks  to  the  like  purpose  ? 
In  the  proem  to  his  Tiazigoiv  v[ivog  or  Eulogy  of  the  Fathers 
(chap.  xliv.  seq.),  he  speaks  generally  of  what  had  been  done 
by  the  Hebrew  worthies.  Among  other  things  he  says : 
"  They  gave  counsel  by  their  understanding,  they  preached — 
made  public  declarations,  aTT^yythAotsg — by  their  jyrophecies  ;" 
44:  3.  Again,  of  some  others  among  them  (v.  5),  he  says: 
"  They  sought  out  the  melody  of  music,  they  composed  po- 
ems in  writing,  dirjyovfAevoi  trnj  h  yQocq:^].  This  latter  clause 
De  AVette  translates  :  Dichteten  Lieder  schrifdich,  (with  the 
same  meaning  as  above)  ;  and  in  its  connection,  this  seems  to 
me  plainly  to  be  the  only  true  meaning.  Here  then  are  the 
two  latter  divisions  of  the  Bible ;  for,  according  to  Josephus 
(cont.  Apion.  I.  8),  the  third  part  consisted  principally  o^ po- 
etry. In  chap,  xlv.,  when  the  writer  comes  to  speak  of  Mo- 
ses, he  says,  that  God  "gave  him  commandments  by  per- 
sonal intercourse,  the  Law  of  life  and  knowledge,  to  teach  Ja- 
cob his  covenant,  and  Israel  his  judgments."  Here  then, 
according  to  the  view  of  Sirachides  himself,  are  virtually  the 
same  tripled  divisions  or  portions  of  the  Scriptures,  which  are 
mentioned  by  the  grand-son  and  translator  in  his  preface  to  the 
book.  To  make  this  language  intelligible,  there  must  have 
been  a  known  and  recognized  distinction  among  the  He- 
brew sacred  books  at  that  time,  to  which  the  mind  of  the 
reader  would  of  course  advert,  when  these  different  portions 
were  named. 

Philo  Judaeus  (flor.  40  B.  C.)  is  our  next  witness,  in 
regard  to  the  point  before  us.  In  his  book  De  Vita  contem- 
plativa  (0pp.  II.  }).  47o  ed.  Mang.)  he  is  speaking  of  the 
Essenes  as  peculiarly  devoted  to  such  a  life,  and  as  withdraw- 
ing into  their  secret  apartments,  from  which  everything  per- 
taining to  the  refreshment  of  the  body  was  excluded,  and 


§  11.    ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON.  249 

there,  says  he,  "  they  receive  only  the  laws  and  the  oracles 
uttered  by  the  p7-02)hets,  and  the  hymns  and  other  [hooks']^  by 
which  knowledge  and  piety  are  augmented  and  perfected."* 
In  other  words,  they  admit  to  their  meditation-closets  nothing 
but  the  holy  Scriptures.  That  this  is  his  meaning,  is  plain 
from  that  which  he  immediately  subjoins  :  "  For  addressing 
themselves  to  the  holy  Scriptures,  {IvTvyidvoviag  yag  roTg 
lEQOig  yQUf^fiaai),  they  philosophize  after  the  manner  of  their 
country,"  etc.  Immediately  after  this  he  says  :  "  They  have, 
moreover,  the  writings  of  ancient  men,  the  leaders  of  their 
sect,  who  have  left  many  memorials  of  their  views,  in  regard 
to  allegorical  matters."  Here  the  express  separation  of  their 
sectarian  books  from  the  Scriptures  before  mentioned,  leaves 
no  room  to  doubt  what  the  meaning  of  Philo  is ;  see  Ap- 
pend, ut  supra.  Such  then  in  Egypt,  as  well  as  in  Palestine, 
was  the  well  known  division  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  before 
the  Christian  era.  How  exactly  it  coincides  with  the  division 
in  the  apostolic  age,  we  shall  soon  see. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  find  the  most  exphcit  testi- 
mony to  the  same  purpose.  Jesus  says  to  his  wondering  and 
doubting  disciples,  after  his  death  and  resurrection,  in  order 
to  calm  and  satisfy  their  minds  with  regard  to  these  events  : 
"  All  things  must  be  fulfilled,  which  are  written  in  the  Lmo 
of  MoseSy  and  the  Prophets^  and  the  Psalms,  concerning  me  ;" 
Luke  24:  44.  In  the  27th  verse  of  the  same  chapter  it  is 
said  of  Jesus,  that  "  beginning  from  Moses  and  from  the  pro- 
phets, he  explained  to  them  [to  his  disciples]  in  all  the  Scrip- 
tures the  things  which  concerned  himself."  This  passage  is 
virtually  the  same  with  that  above.  Two  divisions  of  Scrip- 
ture are  here  alluded  to  by  name,  and  the  third  is  separated 
from  them  by  a  phraseology  which  necessarily  imports,  that 
there  were  other  portions  of  Scripture  besides  the  two  named, 
which  Jesus  interpreted  for  the  disciples,  as  he  first  had  done 
in  respect  to  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  That  the  third  por- 
tion has  not  a  specific  appellation,  is  the  same  phenomenon 
that  we  have  already  seen  in  Sirachides  and  in  Philo.    Phi- 

*  See  Appendix,  No.  II.  for  the  whole  passage. 


250  §  11.   ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON. 

lo,  however,  adverts  to  the  third  division  under  the  general 
designation  of  Jtymns  (vfivoi)  ;  and  Luke,  or  rather  the  Sa- 
viour himself,  refers  to  it  in  the  same  way,  only  he  calls  it 
waX(^oi',  which  is  altogether  equivalent  to  the  vfipoi  of  Philo. 
The  obvious  reason  of  this  designation  seems  to  be,  either  that 
the  Hagiogi"a[»hy  began  (as  now)  with  the  book  of  Psalms, 
and  then  the  maxim,  a  potiori  nomen  Jit,  guided  the  choice  of 
a  designation ;  or  else  the  third  class  of  books  was  called 
Psalms,  because  it  consisted  principally,  if  not  altogether,  of 
poetry.  That  the  Scriptures  in  a  specific  form  are  here  meant, 
there  can  be  no  doubt ;  for  after  speaking  of  the  things  writ- 
ten 4n  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  concerning 
Christ,  it  is  said  of  Jesus,  that  "  he  opened  the  mind  [of  the 
disciples]  to  understand  zdg  yQu.(fd^,  the  Scriptures,"  viz. 
those  Scriptures  which  he  had  quoted  and  explained. 

We  have  already  seen,  that  Josephus,  after  naming  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  as  constituting  the  first  two  parts  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  says  of  the  other  books :  ''  A'l  ds  lomal 
T860UQ8g  vfivovg  tii,-  TOP  -O^tov,  y,ai  toig  dv&QMnoig  vno&t'i- 
Tiag  Tov  ^lov  TzeQi.e/ovoiv,  i.  e.  the  other  four  books  contain 
hymns  to  God,  and  maxims  of  life  for  men  ^"  Cont.  Ap.  I.  8. 
See  Append.  No.  III.  Here  again  is  plainly  the  same  thing 
which  we  have  found  in  Philo  and  in  the  New  Testament, 
with  only  this  difference,  that  Josephus  in  adding  maxims  of 
life  for  men,  has  definitely  alluded  to  the  books  of  Proverbs 
and  Ecclesiastes,  while  the  other  writers  have  merely  com- 
prised them  under  generic  names. 

In  the  later  catalogues  of  the  Old  Testament  books  among 
Christians,  viz.  that  of  Melito  in  the  second  century,  and  of 
Origen  in  the  first  part  of  the  third,  the  names  of  the  books 
are  merely  given,  without  mention  of  the  general  triplex  di- 
vision adverted  to  by  all  the  preceding  writers  who  have  been 
quoted  above.  Melito,  however,  adverts  in  the  context  to 
the  O.  Test.  Scriptures  (see  in  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecc.  IV.  26), 
under  the  designation  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  in  the 
same  manner  as  is  sometimes  done  in  the  New  Testament. 
But  in  Jerome,  incomparably  the  best  Hebrew  scholar  and 


§11.   ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON.  251 

critic  among  all  the  ancient  Christian  fathers,  (indeed  we  may 
say,  the  only  really  thorough  Hebraist  among  them  all),  who 
spent  some  twenty  years  in  Palestine  and  made  himself  fa- 
miliar with  everything  pertaining  to  the  Hebrews — in  Je- 
rome's Prologus  Galeatus,  the  same  triplex  division  reap- 
pears:  "Ita  fiunt  pariter  Yeteris  Legis  Hbri  viginti  duo,  id 
est,  3Io^'s  quinque,  et  Prophetarum  octo,  Hagiographorum 
novem  ;  i.  e.  thus  at  the  same  time  are  made  tAventy-two 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  is,  of  Moses  five,  of  the 
Prophets  eight,  of  the  Hagiography  nine."  Down  then  to 
the  time  of  Jerome  this  ancient  division  of  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures was  in  full  use,  although,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  the 
books  assigned  to  the  second  and  third  divisions  had  suffered 
some  change  of  location  respectively  since  the  time  of  Jo- 
sephus,  who  reckons  the  Prophets  as  comprising  more  books 
than  Jerome  assigns  to  them,  and  the  Hagiography  of  course 
as  comprising  fewer. 

Lastly,  the   Talmud,  in   the  fifth  or  sixth  century,  put  the 
final  seal  upon  this  usage,  so  far  as  the  Jews  and  the  Hebrew 
Bible  are  concerned.     This  compilation  by  learned  Babylon- 
ish Jews  of  all  the  traditions  among  their  Rabbies  in  respect 
to  the  Scriptures  and  to  the  subject  of  religious  rites  and  cer- 
emonies, was  probably  made  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  and 
the  beginning  of  the  sixth  centuries,  (some  portions  of  it  pos- 
sibly earlier,  and   some   still  later).     In  the  Gemara  of  it, 
Tract.  Baha  Bathra,  fol.  13.  c.  2,  we  find  the  following  decla- 
ration :  "  Our  wise  men  say,  that  the  whole  is  one,  and  each 
part  is  one  by  itself;  and  they  have  transmitted  to  us  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Kethubim,  united  together  as  one, 
^nj<3  D'^pnn'nia  d'^nim  d'^x'ins  n^i^n  irssb  ^,x^zti^."      After 
this,  the  passage  goes   on  to  recite   the   order  in  which  the 
books  are  arranged,  and  to  specificate  those  which  belong  to 
the  three  divisions  respectively.     The  Law  is  of  course  the 
same  in  all  the  arrangements  of  the  ancients  ;  the  Prophets  con- 
tains, as  usual,  Joshua,  Judges,  I.  II.  Samuel,  I.  II.  Kings,  Je- 
remiah, Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  and  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  thus 
making  eight  books  for  the  second  division,  as  in  our  common 


252  §11.   ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON. 

Hebrew  Bibles,  and  as  in  Jerome  quoted  above.  In  the  Kethu- 
him  ov  Hagiography,  the  Tahniidists  reckon  eleven  books,  ■while 
Jerome  makes  but  nine.  The  difference  consists  merely  in 
the  mode  of  combination.  Jerome  joins  Euth  to  Judges  as 
one  book,  and  thus  brings  the  former  into  the  circle  of  the 
Prophets ;  he  also  joins  Lamentations  with  Jeremiah,  and 
arranges  it  of  course  in  the  same  way ;  while  the  T^mudists 
separate  these  two  small  books,  and  throw  them  both  into  the 
third  division.  Jerome's  division  is  more  in  conformity  with 
the  ancient  number  of  the  scriptural  books.  That  of  the 
Talmud  depends  on  a  new  mode  of  numbering  these  books ; 
of  which  more  in  due  time. 

What  the  Talmud  thus  sanctioned,  has  come  down  to  the 
present  hour,  among  the  Jews,  substantially  the  same.  The 
only  exception  is  in  the  order  of  some  of  the  books  ;  which 
has  always  been  a  matter  that  admitted  of  change,  and  has 
indeed  been  very  various  in  different  countries  and  in  diffe- 
rent ages.  The  Talmudists  have  one  arrangement ;  the  Ma- 
sorites  another ;  the  German  Mss.  follow  the  former,  while 
the  Spanish  Mss.  exhibit  the  order  of  the  latter ;  and  thus 
■with  the  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  that  are  respectively 
copied  after  each. 

From  a  remote  time,  then,  even  before  the  Christian  era^ 
a  tnpleik  division  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  has  been  made, 
which  necessarily  involved  a  special  relation  of  each  part  to 
the  other,  and  of  course  rendered  it  necessary  that  the  extent 
of  each  part  should  be  definitely  and  well  known.  If  the 
Laiv  was  definite,  if  the  Prophets  was  definite,  then  the  Keth- 
ubi)n  also  was  definite.  For  when  Sirachides  (in  his  pre- 
face) speaks  of  "  the  Law  itself,  and  the  Prophecies,  xal  ra 
XoiTia  Toov  §ipJcov"  if  the  two  first  parts  are  circumscribed, 
definite,  and  intelligible,  then  the  third  division  must  be 
equally  so  ;  for  otherwise  it  would  mean  simply  all  other 
books.  To  suppose  this  last  to  be  the  meaning,  would  be  an 
absurdity. 

This  brings  us  then  again  to  the  position,  that  for  a  long 
time  antecedently  to  the   Christian  era,  the  Old  Testament 


§  11.    ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON.  253 

was  a  definite,  well  known,  accredited  collection  of  writings, 
regarded  by  the  Jews  as  their  sacred  Code  of  Laws,  and  dis- 
tinguished by  them  from  all  other  books.  But  of  the  estima- 
tion in  which  these  books  were  held,  it  will  become  necessary 
hereafter  again  to  speak. 

In  order  to  render  this  view  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
O.  Test.  Scriptures  were  designated,  even  in  very  ancient 
times,  more  complete,  I  must  not  omit  to  mention,  that  as  all 
names  of  things,  of  which  frequent  use  must  be  made  in  com- 
mon parlance,  become,  in  case  they  are  long,  almost  without 
exception  abridged  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  so  it  fared 
with  the  triplex  and  full  designation  of  the  holy  Scriptures. 
Oftentimes  the  Old  Testament  was  spoken  of  merely  as  one 
book,  or  one  code  of  religious  laws  and  history,  and  then  a 
single  name  of  a  generic  nature  was  applied — the  very  same 
that  was  technically  employed,  at  a  later  period,  to  designate 
the  third  division  of  the  Scriptures,  viz.,  yoaqiccl  =  din^ins, 
exactly  in  the  sense  of  our  word  Scriptures.  Examples  of 
this  are  easily  found  in  the  New  Testament;  e.  g.  Matt.  21: 
42.  22:  29.  26:  54,  56.  Luke  24:  32,  45.  John  5:  39.  Acts 
17:  2,  11.  18:  24,  28.  Rom.  15:  4.  16:  26.  2  Pet.  3:  16.  In 
Rom.  1:  2,  Paul  names  the  Old  Testament,  yQacpal  ayiai,  in 
reference  to  their  inspiration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  the 
same  purpose  IsQa  yQaji^ara  in  2  Tim.  3:  15.  When  the 
speaker  wished  to  appeal  to  Scripture  in  a  still  more  generic 
way,  (leaving  out  of  view  its  various  component  parts),  he 
employed  the  singular  number  of  the  noun  yQacfi^,  specially 
when  he  cited  a  passage  from  Scripture  without  stopping  to 
designate  the  particular  place  whence  he  took  it ;  e.  g.  Mark 
12:  10.  15:  28.  Luke  4:  21.  7:  38.  10:  35.  13:  18.  17: 12. 
19:  28,  37.  20:  9.  Acts  1:  16.  8:  32,  35.  Rom.  4:  3.  9:  17. 
10:  1.  11:  2.  Gal.  3:  8.  1  Tim.  5:  18.  James  2:  8.  1  Pet.  2: 
6.  In  a  way  a  little  different  from  this  usage,  and  in  the 
mere  generic  sense  of  Scripture  generally,  we  find  yQa(p^ 
employed  John  2:  22.  10:  35.  Gal.  3:  22.  2  Pet.  1:  20.  In 
2  Tim.  3:  16,  Paul  speaks  of  Tzdaa  foacp^,  i.  e.  every  com- 
ponent part  or  portion  of  Scripture,  (jidaa  ?}  yQaq)/^  would 

22 


fB4  §  II.    ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON. 

mean  the  whole  of  Scnptui^e  as  a  totality,  Winer,  N.  Test. 
Gramm.  §  17.  10),  and  avers  that  it,  i.  e.  each  part  or  portion 
of  Scripture,  ie  ■&s67TV8VGTog,  divinely  inspired. 

The  LaWy  as  being  the  leading  and  preeminent  part  of  the 
Old  Testament^  is  not  unfrequently  employed  to  designate 
comprehensively  the  Scriptures  in  general.  Nothing  is  more 
common  than  such  a  metonymy  or  synecdoche,  where  the 
name  of  a  part  stands  for  the  whole,  and  especially  of  a  pre- 
eminent or  leading  part.  The  old  maxim  :  A  potiori  nomen 
Jit,  also  explains  this.  In  such  a  generic  sense  does  the  word 
seem  plainly  to  be  employed  in  Luke  16:  17.  John  10:  34. 
12:  34.  15:  25,  for  the  Law  (to  which  the  speakers  in  these 
eases  refer)  is  not  any  passage  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  in  other 
parts  of  Scripture.  So  is  it,  also,  with  1  Cor.  14:  21,  where  a 
quotation  from  Isaiah  28:  11,  12,  is  named  the  Law.  In 
John  1:17,  however,  we  have  a  plain  recognition  of  the  word 
Law  as  employed  in  the  limited  and  technical  sense  :  "  The 
Law  was  given  by  Moses."  Rabbinic  usage  agrees  with  the 
custom  of  the  N.  Test,  writers,  in  the  employment  of  the  word 
law  in  a  general  sense ;  and  so  does  the  usage  of  our  own  theo- 
logical dialect  at  the  present  day,  e.  g.  in  such  cases  as  *  the 
Law  and  the  Gospel,'  '  the  divine  Law  has  forbidden  or  sanc- 
tioned this  or  that,'  etc.  Corap.  2  Mace.  2:  18. 

It  will  be  no  matter  of  surprise,  after  this  view  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  appellations  are  bestowed  on  the  O.  Test.  Scrip- 
tures, to  find  that  the  second  portion  of  them,  i.  e.  the  Prophets^^ 
as  well  as  the  first  and  third,  sometimes  lends  its  name  to  de- 
signate the  whole  collection.  Examples  of  such  a  usage  may 
be  found  in  Mark  1:  2.  Matt.  26:  hQ>.  Luke  18:  31.  24:  25. 
John  6:  45.  Acts  3:  21.  13:27,40.  15:15.  26:27.  2Pet.3:2. 
This  accounts  for  the  use  of  the  plural  number,  7rQoq)7JTat,  in 
some  cases  where  merely  one  single  prophet  is  quoted ;  e.  g. 
Matt.  2:  23,  and  many  of  the  passages  to  which  reference  is 
made  in  the  preceding  sentence. 

The  reverse  of  this,  viz.,  the  use  of  the  singidar  number, 
7iQoq)rjTrjg,  to  designate  the  whole  of  Scripture,  (like  yQaqji] 
instead  of  YQa(pai),  I  believe  cannot  be  found  in  the  New 


§  11.   ANCIENT  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  CANON,  255 

Testament.  There  is  an  obvious  reason  for  this.  All  the 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  language  of  the  Jews, 
were  called  Prophets  ;  so  that  all  were  virtually  placed  on  the 
same  basis  or  in  the  same  rank.  No  one  of  these,  (the  sin- 
gular number  would  indicate  only  a  single  individual),  was  so 
preeminently  or  exclusively  the  author  of  the  Scripture,  as  to 
cause  them  to  be  named  from  him.  Between  yqacptj  and 
yQacfal  there  is  no  such  contrast,  because  neither  of  the  words 
•wpejndicative  oi persons*  We  cannot  solve  the  difficulty  then 
in  Mark  1:  2  seq.,  where  passages  in  two  prophets  are  quoted, 
while  they  are  introduced  by  the  formula :  "  As  it  is  written 
in  the  prophet, ^^  by  saying  that  the  singular  number,  7iQoq}rjT7]g, 
stands  for  the  whole  collection.  The  solution  lies  in  another 
quarter.  Griesbach,  and  those  who  follow  him,  employ  the 
singular  number  here,  7TQoq)/jT7j.  But  Hahn,  the  Vulgate  text, 
and  the  earlier  critical  editions,  read  TZQOcp^Tai^  ;  Lachmann 
himself  confessing  that  the  authority  of  it  is  equal  to  that  which 
adopts  the  singular  number.  In  such  a  case  to  prefer  the 
more  difficult  reading,  as  it  is  called,  to  the  one  which  is  con- 
gruous with  the  context  and  with  good  sense,  is  what  I  must 
name  an  abuse  of  a  good  thing — a  real  perversion  of  the  ra- 
tional laws  of  criticism.  But  we  cannot  dwell  on  such  mat- 
ters. 

Finally,  the  two  leading  appellations  of  the  triplex  division 
of  the  Scriptures  are  not  unfrequently  joined  together,  in  or- 
der to  make  the  name  somewhat  more  complete  than  one  ap- 
pellation only  could  make  it.  Thus  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
in  Matt.  11: 13.  22:  40.  Luke  16: 16.  John  1:  45.  Acts  13: 15. 
24: 14.  Rom.  3:  21.  Exactly  in  the  same  sense,  and  for  the 
same  purpose,  Moses  aiidthe  Prophets  is  used  in  various  pas- 
sages;  e.  g.  Luke  16:  29,  31.  24:  27.  Acts  28:  23. 

I  would  merely  remark,  at  the  close  of  this  exposition  of 
Scriptural  usage  as  to  names,  that  the  N.  Test,  writers  could 
never  have  employed  all  these  different  appellations,  and  so 
often  interchanged  them  without  superadding  any  explana- 
tions, if  the  definite  import  of  each  and  all  had  not  been  well 
understood  by  themselves  and  by  those  whom  they  addressed. 


256  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

The  Old  Testament  must  have  been  as  definite  then,  as  it  is 
now,  and  its  Hmits  as  well  known.  Every  Jew  that  could  read, 
must  have  known  what  books  belonged  to  it,  when  copies  of 
the  Scriptures  had  become  common. 


§  12.  Sameness  of  the  Jewish  Canon  in  early  times  shoivn  hy 
the  Number  and  Names  of  the  Boohs. 

We  have  seen  that  Jesus  Sirachides  adverts  only  to  the 
triplex  division  of  the  holy  Scriptures  in  his  time,  but  does  not 
give  us  either  the  names  or  the  number  of  the  books  con- 
tained in  them.  This  division  is  brought  to  view  so  fre- 
quently in  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach  (including  the  Preface),  that 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  of  its  designating  a  limited 
and  definite  collection  of  books ;  and  by  comparison  of  the 
same  triplex  division  brought  to  view  also  by  subsequent 
writers  in  early  times,  and  this  in  connection  with  the  number 
and  7iames  of  the  books,  we  learn  what  estimate  we  should  put 
upon  the  designations  by  Sirachides  of  the  various  portions  of 
the  Scriptures.  We  argue  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that 
his  designations  must  imply  a  definite  and  ascertained  num- 
ber or  circle  of  books ;  but  we  must  go  to  other  writers  to 
learn  with  exactness  the  dimensions  of  this  circle. 

Josephus  has  testified,  (in  the  passage  cont.  Apion.  I.  §  8 
as  fully  quoted  above,  p.  223,  see  Append.  No.  III.),  in  the 
following  mamier :  "  We  have  twenty-two  boohs,  comprising 
the  history  of  every  age,  which  are  justly  credited  as  divine" 
Five  of  these  he  assigns  to  Moses ;  thirteen  to  the  prophets ; 
and  of  course  four  to  the  Hagiography.  Would  that  he  had 
given  us  the  names  of  each,  and  of  those  to  be  classed  under 
each  division  !  But  as  he  has  not,  we  must  supply  this  defi- 
ciency in  the  best  manner  that  we  can.  I  beUeve  it  may  be 
done  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  every  reasonable  reader. 

The  earliest  writer  after  Josephus,  who  has  given  us  an 
account  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews,  is  Melito,  bishop  of 
Sardis,  (fi.  170  A.  D.).  He  travelled  from  Sardis  to  Pales- 
tine, mainly,  as  it  would  seem  by  his  own  statement,  for  the 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OP  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  257 

purpose  of  ascertaining  the  exact  names,  number,  and  order  of 
the  Jewish  Scriptures.  The  result  of  his  visit  he  communi- 
cates to  his  brother  Onesimus,  in  the  following  letter,  pre- 
served by  Eusebius  in  Hist.  Ecc.  IV.  26.  (See  the  original  in 
App.  No.  IV.) 

"  Melito  to  Onesimus  his  brother,  greeting.  Since  you 
have  often  requested,  through  the  earnest  desire  that  you 
cherish  for  the  word  [of  God],  that  you  might  have  a  selec- 
tion made  for  you  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,*  w^hich 
has  respect  to  our  Saviour  and  the  whole  of  our  faith ;  and 
since  moreover  you  have  been  desirous  to  obtain  an  accurate 
account  of  the  ancient  books,  both  as  to  their  number  and  their 
order;  I  have  taken  pains  to  accomplish  this,  knowing  your 
earnestness  in  respect  to  the  faith,  and  your  desire  for  instruc- 
tion in  regard  to  the  word ;  and  most  of  all,  that  you,  while 
striving  after  eternal  salvation,  through  desires  after  God, 
give  a  preference  to  these  things.  Making  a  journey  there- 
fore into  the  east  [Palestine],  and  having  arrived  at  the 
place  w^here  these  things  [i.  e.  scriptural  events]  were  pro- 
claimed and  transacted,  I  there  learned  accurately  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  I  here  arrange  and  trans- 
mit to  you.  The  names  are  as  follows :  The  five  books  of 
Moses,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy. 
Then  Joshua  of  Nun,  Judges,  Huth,  four  books  of  Kings,  two 
of  Chronicles.  The  Psalms  of  David,  the  Proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon (also  called  Wisdom),  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Songs, 
Job.  Prophets  :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  the  Twelve  in  one  book, 
Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra.  From  these  I  have  made  selections, 
distributing  them  into  six  books." 

It  will  not  be  pretended,  I  presume,  by  any  considerate  man, 
that  the  Jews  in  Palestine  had  altered  their  Scriptures  be- 
tween the  time  of  Josephus  (born  A.  D.  37)  and  that  of  Me- 
lito. The  thing  was  impossible  ;  first  on  the  ground  of  their 
own  opposing  parties,  the  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Essenes ; 

*  These  plainly  stand  for  the  whole  Scriptures,  according  to  N.  Test> 
usage  pointed  out  on  page  255  above. 

22* 


258  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

secondly,  on  the  ground  of  rivalsliip  between  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians. I  might  add  a  third  consideration,  peculiarly  applica- 
ble to  those  times,  and  this  is  the  sectarian  zeal  with  which 
the  Pharisees  guarded  all  the  traditions  and  customs  of  their 
forefathers. 

(1)  My  first  remark  on  this  testimony  of  Melito  is,  that  it 
comes  from  a  very  distinguished  and  enlightened  man.  Cave 
says  justly  of  him  :  "  Vir  pietate  non  minus  quam  doctrina 
clarus ;"  and  Tertullian  (a  contemporary)  testifies  of  him, 
that  most  Christians  called  him  a  prophet;  in  Hieron.  de 
Script,  c.  2.  4.  His  knowledge  w^as  acquired,  moreover,  by  a 
special  effort  and  much  caution ;  for  he  was  not  content  with 
what  he  learned  at  Sardis,  but  must  needs  go  to  Palestine  it- 
self, in  order  that  he  might  know  the  uxQi'^Eiav,  the  exact  truth, 
of  the  whole  matter  respecting  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

(2)  It  seems  quite  probable,  if  not  altogether  certain, 
from  the  names  of  the  books,  as  given  by  Melito,  and  from 
their  order,  that  he  learned  them  by  consulting  a  Greek  copy 
or  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  and  not  a  Hebrew  one.  Neither 
the  names,  in  some  cases,  nor  the  order,  nor  the  classification, 
compares  altogether  with  the  Hebrew,  but  rather  with  the 
Version  of  the  Seventy  ;  yet  in  some  respects,  not  even  with 
the  Septuagint  as  we  now  have  it  in  our  printed  copies.  But 
in  makino;  the  four  books  of  Samuel  and  Kinofs  into  one  book 
with  one  and  the  same  designation,  viz.  Kings,  he  plainly  fol- 
lows the  Septuagint ;  in  placing  Chronicles  next  to  them,  he 
does  the  same,  but  here  it  is  far  from  certain  that  the  Hebrew 
at  that  time  differed  in  respect  to  this  from  the  Septuagint. 
The  sequel  of  his  catalogue  differs,  as  to  order,  both  from  the 
Jewish  and  Septuagint  lists  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  have  come  down  to  us  ;  as  also  from  the  order  of  these 
books  as  given  by  Origen,  Jerome,  and  others.  But,  as  I  have 
already  remarked,  the  order  of  classification  has  always  been 
subject  to  variation  in  the  second  and  third  classes  of  the  He- 
brew books ;  and  that  of  Melito  helps  to  confirm  this  view  of 
the  subject. 

(3)  As  the  copy  or  copies  of  the  Greek  Scriptures,  from 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  259 

which  Melito  took  his  list,  contained  none  of  the  apocryphal 
books  (so  called),  so  it  is  plain  and  quite  certain,  that  near 
the  close  of  the  second  century  the  Greek  Scriptures  as  cir- 
culated and  used  in  Palestine,  contained  none  of  the  so-called 
deutero-canonical  books,  i.  e.  apocryphal  books.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  condition  of  the  Old  Testament  Greek 
Scriptures  at  Alexandria,  at  the  period  in  question,  the 
"  books  written  after  the  time  of  Arfaxerxes  Longimanus" 
y  were  not  included  in  the  Scriptures  which  Melito  consulted. 
The  Romish  church  will  find,  therefore,  in  this  almost  primi- 
tive father,  but  a  very  slender  support,  (indeed  none  at  all 
but  the  contrary),  for  their  deutero-canon.  If  it  be  said,  (as 
it  has  been),  that  the  clause  in  Melito,  2!aXofi6jvog  TzaQOifiiat 
tj  xai  Gocpia  means  the  Proverhs  of  Solomon  and  also  Wisdom, 
(i.  e.  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  one  of  the  apocryphal  books), 
the  reply  to  this  suggestion  is  easy.  "  Nearly  all  the  an- 
cients," remarks  Valesius  on  this  passage,  "  called  the  Pro- 
verbs of  Solomon  Wisdom,  and  sometimes  oocpiav  navaiQ^- 
Tov."^  Accordingly  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  calls  the  book 
of  Proverbs  i]  oocpj  ^ip.og  ;  Cap.  28,  Catena  in  Jobum.  The 
author  of  the  Jerusalem  Itinerary,  speaking  of  a  certain 
chamber  in  Jerusalem,  says  that  "  Solomon  sat  there,  and 
there  he  wrote  Sapientiam,''  i.  e.  the  book  of  Proverbs.  Me- 
lito means  then  merely  to  say,  that  the  work  of  Solomon  call- 
ed Ttanoiiiiai,  had  also  the  name  of  aocpia.  The  pronoun  ?; 
also  imports  this.  We  cannot  alter  the  accentuation  and 
make  it  an  article  ;  for  to  a  title  of  a  book  the  article  does 
not  in  such  a  case  belong. 

(4)  Counting  the  books  as  arranged  by  Melito,  we  find  them 
twenty-one  in  number ;  which  lacks  one  of  the  number  as  given 
by  Josephus.  As  the  list  of  the  bishop  now  stands,  the  books 
of  Nehemiah  and  Esther  seem  to  be  omitted.  The  solution  of 
the  difficulty  in  respect  to  Nehemiah  is  easy.  Both  Jews  and 
Greeks,  at  that  time,  reckoned  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemi- 
ah as  being  but  one  ;  for  so  it  appears  by  the  lists  of  the  sacred 
books  among  the  ancients,  Origen,  Jerome,  Concilium  Laod., 
Canones  Apost.,  Hilary,  etc.     Only  one  book  then  is  lacking 


2C0  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

in  Melito ;  and  this  is  the  book  of  Esther.  How  the  prob- 
lem which  this  omission  raises  is  to  be  solved,  critics  have  not 
been  agreed.  Eichhorn  supposes  Esther  to  be  included  by 
Melito  under  the  denomination  "Eodqag ;  but  the  like  to  this 
is  not  found  elsewhere  among  the  ancient  modes  of  reckoning 
the  sacred  books.  Herbst,  in  his  recent  Einleiturig,  supposes 
Melito  to  have  had  access  to  a  Greek  Manuscript  which  con- 
tained the  apocryphal  additions  to  Esther,  and  which,  as  he 
was  told  by  the  Jews  that  they  did  not  admit  the  authenticity 
of  the  book  in  that  interpolated  state,  he  rejected  from  his 
canon.  I  deem  it  more  satisfactory  to  suppose,  with  others, 
an  omission  here  of  the  name  of  Esther  by  Eusebius,  in  copy- 
ing the  document.  Precisely  such  an  one  occurs  in  his  copy 
of  Origen's  canon,  Ecc.  Hist.  VI.  25.  Origen  says,  even  as 
copied  by  Eusebius,  that  twenty-two  books  belong  to  the  Ca- 
non, and  he  then  proceeds  to  name  them.  But  in  doing  this, 
the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  (in  one  book)  are  omitted  by  Eu- 
sebius, so  that,  as  represented  by  this  historian,  Origen  makes 
only  twenty-one  books.  Besides  this,  Ruffinus'  translation  of 
Origen  gives  us  the  missing  book,  and  restores  the  Minor 
Prophets  to  their  proper  place.  Herbst  thinks  that  Melito 
himself  must  have  omitted  Esther,  because,  as  he  avers, 
Athanasius  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  reject  it.  But  Gregory 
remarks  in  respect  to  it :  "  tovzoi^  [i.  e.  to  or  with  the  other 
books  of  the  O.  Test,]  TrQoasyyQtvovai  ztjv  'Ead^rjQ  tivs'g,  i.  e. 
with  these  some  reckon  Esther ;"  Carm.  XXXIII.  Tom.  II, 
It  would  seem  probable  that  he  himself  doubted  of  the  book. 
Athanasius  also  omits  it,  probably  on  a  similar  ground  ;  but 
Origen,  the  Council  of  Laodicea  (about  360 — 364)  Can.  59, 
Canones  Apostol.  LXXXV.,  Cyrillus  Hieros.  Catech.  IV. 
No.  33 — 36,  Epiphanius  de  Mens,  et  Ponder,  c.  22,  23,  0pp. 
II.,  Jerome  in  Prol.  Gal.,  in  their  respective  lists,  all  expressly 
insert  it.  It  must  be  admitted,  I  think,  that  either  Gregory 
and  Athanasius  both  had  doubts  about  the  canonical  authority 
of  Esther ;  or  that  in  their  lists  of  sacred  books,  they  have 
merely  copied  from  Eusebius,  who,  it  seems  plain,  had  acci- 
dentally omitted  it.     The  whole  current  of  Christian  antiqui- 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  261 

ty  is  evidently  in  favour  of  such  a  view.  And  as  to  the 
Jeivs^  the  very  copious  extracts  which  Josephus  has  made 
from  the  book  of  Esther,  as  also  the  time  in  which  he  sup- 
poses it  to  have  been  written,  render  it  altogether  certain  that 
it  was  in  his  canon  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

Thus  much  for  Melito.  A  most  important  witness  more- 
over he  is,  because  he  is  so  early,  and  withal  so  intelligent 
and  candid.  "VVe  have  then  the  books  which  Josephus'  num- 
ber twenty-two  comprised.  We  cannot  omit  Esther  at  all 
events,  so  far  as  Josephus  is  concerned ;  and  our  next  object 
is  to  inquire  how  these  books  in  question  came  to  be  reckon- 
ed at  twenty-two. 

In  whatever  way  we  regard  the  number  of  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  reckoned  by  the  ancient  Jews  or 
Christians,  we  are  obliged  to  confess  that  there  is  something 
of  the  arbitrary  and  the  fanciful  in  it.  Still,  it  is  a  circum- 
stance in  itself  so  immaterial,  that  we  need  not  take  any 
alarm  at  the  phantasies  which  have  controlled  this  matter. 
Jerome,  who  spent  many  years  in  Palestine  in  studying  the 
Hebrew  language,  customs,  and  opinions,  and  who,  as  I  have 
said,  was  by  far  the  best  critic  and  exegete  of  all  the  ancient 
fathers,  has  doubtless  given  us  the  true  secret  of  the  number 
twenty-two,  as  applied  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Let  us 
hear  him,  as  he  speaks  in  his  Prologus  Galeatus  :  "•  Viginti 
et  duas  literas  esse  apud  Hebraeos,  Syrorumque  quoque  lin- 
gua et  Chaldaeorum  testatur  quae  Hebraeae  magna  ex  parte 
confinis  est.     Nam  et  ipsi  viginti  duo  elementa  habent,  eodem 

sono  et  diversis  characteribus .  Quomodo  igitur  viginti  duo 

elementa  sunt,  per  quae  scribimus  Plebraice  omne  quod  loqui- 
mur,  et  eorum  initiis  vox  humana  comprehenditur ;  ita  w- 
ginti  duo  volumina  supputantur,  quibus,  quasi  literis  et  exor- 
diis,  in  Dei  doctrina  tcnera  adhuc  et  lactens  viri  justi  erudi- 
tur  infantia;  i.  e.  that  there  are  twenty-two  letters  among  the 
Hebrews,  the  Syriac  and  Chaldee  languages  testify,  which  for 
the  most  part  are  kindred  with  the  Hebrew.  For  they  have 
twenty-two  letters,  the  same  [as  the  Hebrew]  in  sound,  but 
differing  in  form. . .  As  then  there  are  twenty-two  letters  by 


262  §  12.   SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

which  we  write  in  Hebrew  everything  that  we  utter,  and  the 
human  voice  is  comprised  within  their  constituent  initial  ele- 
ments :  so  twenty-two  volumes  are  reckoned,  by  which  the 
tender  and  as  yet  unwearied  infancy  of  the  just  man  is  in- 
structed, as  by  elementary  letters,  in  the  doctrine  of  God." 
It  is  in  vain  to  ask  what  could  have  directed  the  minds  of 
those  who  arranged  the  Scriptures  to  such  a  fanciful  compar- 
ison.    But  to  say  the  least,  it  is  certainly  not  an  unnatural 
mode  of  reckoning.     '  Letters  instruct,  and  there  are  twenty- 
two  of  them  ;  the   Scriptures  instruct,  and  there  are  twenty- 
two  of  them.'     Such  was  the  analogical  reasoning.     I  do  not 
know  that  critics  have  taxed  Aristarchus  with  folly  or  weak- 
ness, because  he  divided  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey  into  twenty- 
four  books  each,  according  to  the  number  of  letters  in  the 
Greek  alphabet.     It  was  an  easy  way  of  designating  and  dis- 
tinguishing the  diflferent  parts  of  those  poems.     Why  should 
it  be  thought  strange,  that  not  far  from  the  same  time  some 
zealous  student  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  divided  them  in  a 
similar  manner  ?     Even  if  you  reply,  and  say  that  unnatural 
combinations  of  different  books  into  one  were  resorted  to,  in 
order  to  make  the  number  twenty-two  ;  still  this  has  no  solid 
foundation.     Aristarchus  has  combined  the  poems  of  Homer, 
in  some  cases,  in  the  like  manner,  where  the  matter  would 
have  pointed  to  a  division  different  from  that  which  he  has 
made.     Yet  his  division  is  without  any  serious  inconvenience. 
So  the  Jews  in  several  cases  combined  books  together  as  one 
which  seem  to  be  tioo^  and  are  so  reckoned  in  our  present  Bi- 
bles.    The  ancient  lists  of  the  scriptural  books  show,  that  at 
first  this  combination  was  made  thus  :  Judges  and  Ruth  were 
united  as  one ;  I.  11.  Samuel  as  one ;  I.  II.  Kings  as  one ; 
I.  II.  Chronicles  as  one  ;  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  as  one ;  Jere- 
miah and  the  Lamentations  as  one  ;  the  twelve  prophets  as 
one.     The  reason  of  the  combination  in  the  first  five  cases  is 
very  plain.     The  historical  matter  of  the  books  is  continuous 
and  successive.     In  the  sixth  case,  it  is  very  plain  that  Jere- 
miah is  reckoned  as  including  the  Lamentations,  because  both 
are  the  work  of  one  author,  and  the  latter  is  an  appendix 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  263 

which  shows  the  fulfilment  of  his  prophecy.  As  to  the  twelve 
Minor  Prophets  it  would  seem  that  they  were  comprised  in 
one,  i.  e.  in  one  roll  or  volume,  on  account  of  their  brevity. 
Jerome  (ut  sup.)  speaks  of  the  Hebrews  as  usually  counting 
five  of  the  books  as  double,  because  they  have  the  same  num- 
ber of  letters  in  the  alphabet  which  have  two  forms,  viz.  "]D , 
d^a ,  "ji ,  Ci3 ,  Y:i ;  and,  corresponding  with  these,  they  reckon 
Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Jeremiah,  as  being 
double  or  consisting  of  two  parts.*  But  this  is  somewhat 
more  fanciful  or  arbitrary  than  the  numbering  of  the  books  in 
general  according  to  the  letters  of  the  alphabet ;  inasmuch  as 
it  does  not  reach  or  account  for  all  the  cases  of  combination. 
The  union  of  Judges  and  Ruth,  and  also  of  the  twelve  minor 
prophets  still  remains  to  be  accounted  for. 

With  the  light  which  we  obtain  from  Jerome,  we  may  now 
go  back  to  Josephus,  and  ask  how  he  must  have  made  out 
bis  triplex  division,  viz.  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  the  Hymns 
and  Maxims  of  Life,  and  at  the  same  time  have  made  only 
twenty-tivo  books  in  the  whole. 

The  matter  is  easy  and  obvious.  (1)  The  five  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  always  stood 
and  still  stand.  (2)  We  must  call  to  mind,  that  prophets  is 
a  designation,  among  the  Hebrews,  of  any  writer  who  is,  or 
is  believed  to  be,  inspired ;  and  that  of  course  it  may,  and 
does,  comprehend  the  historians  as  well  as  those  who  uttered 
predictions.  According  to  Josephus,  then,  Prophets  compri- 
ses all  the  books  which  are  historical  or  predictive.  Of  course 
his  second  division  which,  as  he  tells  us,  is  comprised  Iv  zqigv 
y,a\  dtxa  ^ipXioig,  i.  e.  "in  thirteen  books,"  must  include  (1) 
Joshua.  (2)  Judges  and  Ruth.  (3)  I.  IL  Samuel.  (4)  I. 
H.  Kings.  (5)  I.  H.  Chronicles.  (6)  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 
(7)  Esther.  (8)  Isaiah.  (9)  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations. 
(10)  Ezekiel.  (11)  Daniel.  (12)  The  twelve  Minor  Pro- 
phets. (13)  Job.  All  these  are  historical  or  predictive.  The 
book  of  Job  is  not  an  exception  ;  because  Josephus  doubtless 
regarded  it  in  the  light  of  a  real  history  of  Job,  and  as  much 

*  See  the  passage  of  Jerome  in  the  Appendix,  No.  XIV- 


264      §  12.  SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

a  history  as  the  book  of  Ruth,  or  Esther,  aUhongh  written 
poetically.  That  he  did  so  reckon  is  plain,  because  the  at 
XoiTzal  Tt(76aQEg,  i.  e.  the  other  remaining  four  books,  he  de- 
scribes as  consisting  of  v^iroi  nai  vnoO'tj-Aai  rov  ^lov,  i.  e. 
hymns  and  maxims  of  life.  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  conten- 
ded that  17/0^0^  does  not  characterize  the  Psalms  ;  and  the 
other  books  must  of  course  be  the  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
Canticles.  And  although  the  designation,  hymns,  or  maxims 
of  life,  will  not  strictly  apply  to  Canticles,  yet  here,  as  is  com- 
mon in  other  cases,  a  potiori  nomen  fit,  the  name  is  given  to 
four  books  from  the  altogether  predominant  part  of  them. 
Canticles  is  neither  predictive  nor  historical,  and  so  it  would 
not  class  with  the  Prophets  or  second  division  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  conclusion  seems  to  be  a  necessary  one,  there- 
fore, that  Josephus  arranged  his  twenty-two  books  in  the  man- 
ner that  has  now  been  specified. 

This  conclusion  seems  to  amount  to  satisfactory  certainty, 
when  we  examine  all  the  early  lists  of  the  Old  Testament 
books,  which  other  writers  have  transmitted  to  us.  The  list 
of  Melito  combines  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
same  manner  as  that  which  we  have  attributed  to  Josephus, 
with  the  single  exception,  that  Judges  is  separated  from  Ruth, 
and  I.  II.  Samuel  and  I.  II.  Kings  are  combined  into  one 
book  in  four  parts,  as  they  were  in  the  Septuagint,  and  are 
still,  even  down  to  the  present  time.  Origen,  who  was  fami- 
liar with  the  Hebrew  Mss.  of  his  day,  gives  the  combination 
of  books  in  just  the  same  way  as  that  which  has  been  attri- 
buted to  Josephus.  The  Council  of  Laodicea  (360 — 364), 
in  Can.  59,  follow  in  the  same  track,  making  twenty-two  books, 
in  the  same  way  as  Josephus  does.  The  only  departure  is 
in  the  case  of  Jeremiah,  where  they  join  Baruch  and  the 
epistles  in  the  same  book  with  that  prophet,  as  well  as  the 
Lamentations.  It  has  been  supposed,  that  the  apocryphal  Ba- 
ruch was  the  one  here  designated,  and  so  that  it  was  anciently 
included  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah.  But  of  this  I  must  doubt. 
Whoever  reads  Jer.  xxxvi.  xlv.  will  be  satisfied,  specially  if 
he  reflects  on  the  disjointed  condition  in  which  the  writings  of 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  265 

this  prophet  formerly  were,  that  the  portions  of  Jeremiah's 
words  which  were  written  down  by  Baruch,  and  on  a  separate 
roll,  might  occasion  the  mistake  here  supposed  to  be  made  in 
the  enumeration. 

In  the  same  manner  as  Origen,  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem  reck- 
ons in  his  Catech.  IV.,  thus  making  expressly  twenty-two 
books.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  (Carm.  XXXIII.)  follows  in 
the  same  steps.  Athanasius  (Epist.  fest.  0pp.  I.  961)  has 
the  same  reckoning  as  Cyrill,  only  that  Ruth  is  separated  from 
Judges,  and  Esther  is  omitted,  still  making  the  number  of 
books  to  be  twenty-two,  as  usual. 

If  we  go  to  the  Latin  church,  we  find  Jerome,  the  real 
head  of  that, church  and  of  all  the  fathers,  as  to  criticism, 
making  (in  Prolog.  Gal.)  as  has  already  been  stated,  twenty- 
two  books,  and  coupling  and  combining  several  of  them  in 
the  same  manner  as  Origen.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  he 
makes  a  somewhat  different  division  of  the  books  in  so  far  as 
they  belong  respectively  to  the  Prophets  or  to  the  Kethubim ; 
but  this  division  exhibited  by  Jerome  was  a  more  recent  af- 
fair among  the  Hebrews  ;  for  so  I  think  we  shall,  in  the  se- 
quel, see  reason  to  believe  ;  just  as  the  practice  of  counting 
twenty-four  books  (instead  of  twenty-two)  had  recently  be- 
gun in  the  time  of  Jerome.  This  last  usage,  sanctioned  by 
the  Talmud,  occasioned  of  course  a  separation  of  some  of  the 
books  which  had  been  combined  together,  in  order  to  make 
out  the  number  twenty-two.  Important  consequences  are  con- 
nected with  the  establishment  of  these  suggestions,  and  on 
this  account  they  must,  in  due  time,  occupy  some  of  our  at- 
tention. 

What  is  wanting  in  Josephus,  in  respect  to  specification 
of  particulars,  (and  also  in  Sirachides  and  Philo),  is  fully  and 
adequately  supplied  by  writers  who  lived  shortly  afterwards, 
and  by  some  who  had  an  undoubted  acquaintance  with  the 
Jewish  language  and  literature,  viz.  Origen  and  Jerome. 
There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  such  a  uniformity  in  ancient  testi- 
mony, as  to  the  books  which  were  combined  and  thus  counted 
as  one,  that  no  reasonable  doubt  can  remain  in  respect  to  this 

23 


2GC  §  12.    SAMENESS   OF  THE  JEWISH  CANOK, 

point ;  above  all,  it  would  seem  that  none  could  remain,  when 
nearly  all  the  ancient  writers,  who  have  given  us  lists  of  the 
sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  have,  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  Josephus,  made  out  tioenty-tico  books  as  belonging  to 
it,  and  told  us  what  several  books  were  combined  in  order  to 
count  respectively  as  one. 

One  consequence,  of  no  small  importance  in  criticism,  may 
be  drawn  from  the  result  of  this  investigation.  This  is,  that 
the  so  called  Hagiography,  or  third  portion  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  was  not,  very  anciently,  what  it  is  now,  or  what  it 
was  reckoned  to  be  about  the  time  of  Jerome,  and  of  the  ori- 
gin of  the  Babylonish  Talmud  which  was  not  long  after.  If 
this  can  be  established,  then  the  leading  argument  employed 
by  the  Liberalists  to  show  the  lateness  of  the  composition — 
a  lateness  extending  even  down  to  the  Maccabaean  times,  of 
Daniel,  Chronicles,  many  of  the  Psalms,  and  perhaps  some 
other  scriptural  books,  or  parts  of  books — is  deprived  at  once 
of  all  its  force.  The  argument  runs  thus  :  "  No  reason  can 
be  assigned,  except  the  lateness  of  the  composition,  why  Dan- 
iel and  the  Chronicles  should  be  placed  among  the  Kethubim 
or  Hagiography,  since  the  first  belongs  to  the  class  of  the 
latter  prophets,  and  the  second,  like  Samuel,  Kings,  etc.,  to 
the  class  of  the  former  prophets.  The  fact,  then,  that  Daniel 
and  Chronicles  are  joined  with  the  Kethubim,  shows  that 
they  were  written  after  the  second  class  of  the  scriptural 
books,  viz.  the  Prophets,  was  fully  defined  and  completed. 
Now  as  this  class  comprises  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi, 
so  we'  have  conclusive  evidence  that  Daniel  and  Chronicles 
must  have  been  composed,  or  at  all  events  introduced  into  the 
canon,  at  a  period  subsequent  to  that  of  Nehemiah  and  Mala- 
chi, which  was  about  430—420  B.  C." 

This  is  specious,  to  say  the  least,  at  first  view.  But  then 
it  takes  for  granted  some  things  which  cannot  be  proved  ;  nay, 
I  will  venture  to  say,  the  contrary  of  which  can  be  proved, 
or  at  least  rendered  highly  probable.  It  takes  for  granted, 
that  the  Ilieronymean  and  Talmudic  limits  of  the  Prophets 
and  the  Hagiography  are   the  ancient  and  original  limits ; 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  267 

which  is  far  enough  from  being  capable  of  proof.  It  takes 
for  granted,  that  the  main  reason  for  inserting  books  among 
the  chiss  called  the  Haglography^  was  the  recent  origin  of  the 
books,  which  must  have  been  written,  as  they  say,  after  the 
Prophets  had  become  a  definite  and  completed  class.  But, 
not  to  speak  of  the  doubtful  age  of  the  book  of  Job,  what  shall 
be  said  of  the  great  body  of  the  Psalms,  and  of  the  book  of 
Proverbs  ?  David  and  Solomon  surely  were  not  llaccabaean 
writers ;  not  to  mention  that  the  Jews,  so  far  back  as  we 
know  anything  of  their  opinions,  have  always  held  the  books 
of  Ecclesiastes  and  Canticles  to  be  the  work  of  Solomon. 
Why  were  these  then  put  into  the  Hagiography  ?  for  there 
they  have  been,  ever  since  the  triplex  division  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  was  made.  Such  an  argument,  therefore,  hits  wide 
of  the  mark.  Lateness  of  composition  is  not  essential  to  a  clas- 
sification with  the  Hagiography.  Moreover  the  Neologists  take 
for  granted,  that  the  Prophets  and  the  Kethubim  have  been, 
since  their  completion,  fixed  and  uniform  as  to  the  number  of 
books  in  each,  and  these  always  the  same  as  they  were  at  first; 
so  that  one  may  even  build  an  argument  on  this  assumption. 
But  the  sequel  will  show  how  little  foundation  there  is,  on 
which  any  one  can  erect  such  a  superstructure. 

I  am  fully  aware  to  what  extent  the  Talmudic  apportion- 
ment of  the  Hagiography  has  been  admitted  and  sanctioned. 
Even  Buxtorf,  when  he  quotes  the  words  of  Josephus,  de- 
scriptive of  the  third  division  of  the  sacred  books,  viz.,  "  at  d^ 
loiTioi  TtaaaQeg  viivovg  nl^  zov  de6i\  y.ul  toTg  (hOQcoTzoig  vno- 
&7l'/.ag  70V  [iiov  TitQi^y^ovGiv,  i.  e.  the  remaining  four  [books] 
contain  hymns  to  God,  and  maxims  of  life  for  men,"  feels 
compelled  to  add :  "  Obscure  hoc,  nee  satis  distincte,"  Comm. 
Mas.  p.  28.  He  takes  it  for  granted,  that  the  Talmudic  ar- 
rangement and  partition  of  the  books,  is  the  genuine  and 
most  ancient  one.  So  have  the  great  mass  of  writers  done  ; 
as  it  would  seem,  without  investigating  the  subject  de  novo. 
Josephus,  it  has  been  said,  makes  a  classification  peculiar  to 
himself,  and  one  which  he  constituted  merely  by  having  re- 
spect to  the  contents  or  matters  discussed  in  the  several  books. 


268  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

But  when  the  proof  of  this  is  demanded,  we  are  merely  re- 
ferred to  Jerome  and  to  the  Talmud.  To  such  a  reference, 
however,  I  must  beg  leave  to  take  some  exceptions. 

It  is  clear  at  all  events  from  Josephus,  since  he  has  af- 
firmed that  the  Hebrews  have  only  twenty-two  books,  and  also 
that  live  of  these  belong  to  the  Pentateuch  and  thirteen  to  the 
Prophets,  that  of  course  only  four  books  can  be  left  for  the 
Hagiography.  These  he  says  consist  of  hymns  and  practical 
maxims.  This  limitation  of  the  number  and  description  of  the 
contents  obliges  us  to  resort  to  and  fix  upon  the  Psalms,  Pro- 
verbs, Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles,  as  the  constituent  elements 
of  the  ancient  Hagiography.  This  classification  comes  from 
a  man,  let  it  be  remembered,  who  had  a  more  intimate  know- 
ledge of  Hebrew  opinions  and  history,  than  any  other  man  of 
his  time.  He  had  no  temptation,  in  this  case,  to  represent 
the  matter  different  from  what  it  was.  Nothing  in  regard  to 
the  interests  of  himself,  or  of  his  nation,  depended  on  his 
mode  of  representing  the  Hagiography.  He  must  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  custom  of  his  nation,  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  making  the  appointment  or  division  of  the  sacred 
books.  There  was  no  inducement  that  we  can  conceive  of 
to  depart,  in  his  representation,  from  the  usual  opinion — usual 
among  the  priests — in  respect  to  the  whole  affair.  A  com- 
petent, an  enlightened,  an  impartial,  an  honest,  a  disinterest- 
ed witness,  has  always  a  fair  claim  to  be  heard,  and  to  be  be- 
lieved too,  so  long  as  what  he  testifies  is  neither  impossible 
nor  improbable.  Josephus  was  all  this  as  a  witness  in  the 
present  case,  and  the  thing  testified  looks  altogether  more 
probable  and  more  inviting  to  confidence,  than  the  Talmudic 
division  of  the  Prophets  and  Kethuhim.  The  division  of  Jo- 
sephus, (the  word  Prophets  being  understood  in  the  sense 
which  the  Hebrews  attached  to  it),  is  founded  on  a  rational 
ground,  viz.  on  the  ground  of  the  respectively  different  ma- 
terials or  contents  of  the  several  classes  of  the  sacred  books. 
Hymns  and  Maxims  of  life  are  neither  history  nor  prediction, 
and  so  they  are  classed  by  themselves,  according  to  Josephus. 
But  the  Talmudic  division  of  the  sacred  books  depends  on  some 


§  12,    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  269 

conceits  about  the  different  gradations  of  inspiration,  which 
are  not  only  incapable  of  any  satisfactory  proof,  but  are  in 
themselves  quite  improbable.  The  story  of  the  Jewish  doc- 
tors is,  that  the  books  of  INIoses  take  the  precedence  above 
all  others,  because  God  spake  with  him  mouth  to  mouth  ;  that 
the  Prophets  who  came  after  him,  were  such  as,  whether 
sleeping  or  waking  when  they  received  revelations,  were  de- 
prived of  all  the  use  of  their  senses,  and  were  spoken  to  by  a 
voice,  and  saw  prophetic  visions  in  ecstasy ;  that  the  thu'd 
and  lowest  class  of  the  sacred  writers  were  those,  who,  pre- 
serving the  use  of  their  senses,  spake  like  other  men,  and 
yet  in  such  a  way  that,  although  not  favoured  with  dreams 
or  visions  in  ecstasy,  they  still  perceived  a  divine  influence 
resting  upon  them,  at  whose  suggestion  they  spoke  or  wrote 
what  they  made  public.  Of  this  last  class,  according  to  the 
Rabbins,  were  the  authors  of  the  Kethubim ;  see  Carpzov. 
Introd.  ad  Lib.  Bib.  V.  Test.  c.  II.  §  4 ;  Abarbanel,  Praef. 
Comm.  in  Job. ;  D.  Kimchi,  Praef.  in  Psalm. ;  Maimon. 
Moreh  Neb.  IL  c.  45. 

Now  that  Moses,  as  the  founder  of  the  Jewish  religion  and 
leader  of  the  nation  when  achieving  its  independence,  whose 
laws  were  to  be  their  statute  book  in  all  future  generations 
until  the  coming  of  Christ — that  such  a  distinguished  person- 
age is  entitled,  from  these  considerations,  to  be  placed  at  the 
head  of  all  the  Jewish  teachers  and  leaders  of  ancient  times, 
no  one  will  doubt.  That  extraordinary  revelations  of  God 
were  made  to  him  in  a  peculiar  way,  we  need  not  call  in  ques- 
tion. Certainly,  if  we  take  the  Pentateuch  as  our  guide  iu 
such  a  matter,  this  must  be  conceded.  But  still,  although  the 
manner  of  communication  with  him  was  peculiar,  it  does  not 
follow  that  what  he  uttered  was  more  worthy  of  credit,  than 
that  which  was  uttered  by  other  scriptural  writers.  Truth  is 
truth,  and  cannot  be  any  more  than  this.  If  the  hagiogra- 
phal  writers  uttered  what  was  true,  (and  the  Jewish  doctors 
all  with  one  voice  affn-ni  that  they  did),  then  the  Hagiography 
stands  on  the  same  level  with  the  Pentateuch,  in  regard  to  its 
authenticity,  and  of  course  in  regard  to  the  credence  which 
23* 


270  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

we  should  give  to  it  and  the  respect  that  is  due  to  it.  I  am 
far  enough  from  asserting,  that  the  contents  of  any  and  every 
book  in  the  Old  Testament  are  all  of  equal  interest  and  im- 
portance. This  is  not  and  cannot  be  the  case.  In  a  great 
temple,  built  by  one  and  the  same  architect,  there  are  many 
parts  of  the  edifice  that  retreat  from  notice,  and  are  scarcely 
thought  of  by  the  beholder,  and  yet  they  are  essential  to  the 
completeness  of  the  building,  and  vp^ere  as  really  the  result  of 
the  architect's  skill  and  plan,  as  the  more  prominent  portions 
which  throw  themselves  into  the  notice  of  all.  So  is  it  with 
God's  ancient  edifice.  The  Pentateuch  constitutes  if  you 
please,  the  portico,  the  pillars,  the  fagade,  and  the  main  apart- 
ment ;  but  there  is  many  and  many  a  subordinate  portion  of 
such  a  building,  presenting  itself  scarcely  at  all  to  our  notice, 
which  is  as  really  necessary  to  its  full  completeness,  as  the 
most  conspicuous  parts  of  the  same. 

Even  granting,  then,  that  the  Hagiography  was  written  by 
men  who,  according  to  the  Rabbins,  used  their  senses,  and 
were  only  occasionally  inspired,  it  would  not  follow,  that  any 
derogation  from  its  authenticity  or  credibility  can  be  made 
out  from  this  circumstance.  Indeed  they  do  not  even  pretend 
to  say  this.  But  still  it  is  difiicult,  after  admitting  their 
grounds  of  classifying  the  Scriptures,  to  avoid  the  idea  of  a 
difference  in  the  authority  of  each  class,  and  in  the  credence 
due  to  each.  Yet  if  the  subject-matter  of  the  scriptural  books 
is  really  to  be  taken  into  account,  and  at  the  same  time  if  it 
be  conceded  (as  it  is  by  them),  that  all  the  books  are  inspi- 
red, then  we  have  a  right  to  call  on  them  to  show  us,  how  and 
why  the  book  of  Psalms  and  that  of  the  Proverbs,  (each  in- 
cluded in  the  Hagiography),  are,  or  are  deemed  to  be,  of  in- 
ferior station  or  consequence.  Nay  so  far  is  the  true  state  of 
the  case  from  this,  that  we  may  safely  say,  that  these  two 
books  are  of  more  practical  avail  under  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation— more  to  the  purposes  of  devotional  piety  and  a  well 
regulated  life,  than  any  other  portion,  I  had  almost  said,  more 
than  all  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Thus  much  for  this  renowned  Rabbinical  division  of  the 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  271 

Scriptures,  as  to  this  point  of  view.  But  there  are  other 
difficulties  with  it.  "  The  prophets,  forsooth,  were  men  who 
were  deprived  of  all  use  of  their  senses,  when  in  an  ecstatic 
state,  and  report  to  us  only  what  they  saw  in  visions  and 
heard  addressed  to  them  !"  And  is  this  so  ?  What  then  is 
the  seeing  or  the  hearing,  in  this  case  ?  But  passing  by  this, 
I  would  ask  :  Had  they  no  use  of  their  senses,  when  they 
wrote  down  the  revelations  made  to  them  ?  Besides  ;  Paul 
taxes  the  Corinthian  prophets  with  the  abuse  of  their  mirac- 
ulous powers  or  gifts  ;  how  could  they  abuse  them,  if  they 
were  not  free  agents  when  possessing  them  ?  Paul  says,  too, 
that  "  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets" 
(1  Cor.  14:  32)  ;  which  could  not  be  true  of  such  prophets  as 
the  Rabbles  imagine.  Besides ;  what  evidence  is  there  to 
show,  that  such  extraordinary  and  peculiar  revelations  were 
made  to  the  writers  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings, 
while  the  divine  influence  was  altogether  of  a  lower  kind, 
which  rested  upon  the  writers  of  the  Psalms,  the  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  and  the  other  books  of  the  Jewish  Kethubim  ? 

In  fact,  the  lowest  gradation  of  inspiration,  ascribed  by  the 
Rabbles  to  the  authors  of  the  Kethubim,  is  as  high  as  Chris- 
tianity demands,  or,  one  may  say,  even  permits  us  to  ascribe 
to  men.  No  man,  not  even  Moses  or  Isaiah,  was  uniformly 
and  always  inspired.  Of  all  God's  messengers,  only  one  re- 
ceived the  gift  of  the  Spirit  without  measure ;  and  he  was 
the  only  one  who  never  erred  and  never  sinned.  Others 
were  inspired  for  a  particular  purpose,  and  (it  may  be)  re- 
mained so,  until  that  purpose  was  accomplished.  Then  they 
returned  to  their  usual  state.  So  it  was  with  even  Moses ; 
and  so  with  all  the  other  prophets  or  priests  concerned  with 
the  writing  of  the  0.  Test.  Scriptures.  How  is  the  higher 
inspiration  of  the  authors  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings,  to  be  proved,  when  no  one  can  even  tell  who  wrote 
these  books  ?  Or  in  what  respect  as  to  the  credence  due  to 
them,  do  these  compositions  differ  from  those  of  Ezra,  Nehe- 
raiah,  Esther,  and  Chronicles  ? 

In   fact,  the  whole  affair  is  a  mere  Rabbinical   conceit, 


» 


272  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

hatclied  out  during  the  dark  ages  of  Rabbinism  that  preceded 
the  composition  of  the  Babylonish  Talmud. 

Nor  is  the  fact  that  there  is  no  justifiable  ground  for  the  po- 
sition of  the  Jewish  doctors  in  respect  to  the  Prophets  and  the 
Kethubira,  the  only  thing  to  be  considered.  Such  a  division, 
I  acknowledge,  might  exist  at  an  earlier  period,  although 
founded  on  phantasy  or  on  caprice ;  for  there  is  enough  of 
both  these  in  the  Mishna  itself  to  show  us,  that  a  talent  for 
the  production  of  such  things  abounded  among  the  Rabbles  of 
earlier  times.  The  question  recurs,  after  we  have  seen  the 
division  which  Josephus  made  of  the  sacred  books :  Whether 
others  of  the  more  ancient  authorities  agreed  with  him  ?  If 
they  did,  then  has  Josephus  given  us  the  usual  division  of  the 
Scriptures  at  his  time. 

The  grandson  of  Jesus  Sirachides,  in  describing  the  third 
class  of  Scriptures,  or  the  Hagiography,  calls  them  "the 
other  [books]  w^hich  follow  •/.aj'  avjovg,  in  accordance  with 
them  [the  Prophets]  or  of  a  like  spirit ;"  also  "  the  other 
patrical  (nazQiwv)  books  ;"  and  finally,  "  the  rest  of  the  Bi- 
ble, ra  Xoma  zoiv  ^i^lmv ;"  see  p.  246  above.  Sirachides 
himself  describes  the  third  division,  by  saying  of  the  ancient 
Plebrew  worthies :  "  They  sought  out  the  melody  of  music,  they 
composed  poems  in  writing  ;"  Sirach.  4-i::  5.  Philo  says  of 
the  Essenes,  that  they  read  not  only  the  Law  and  the  Pro- 
phets, but  "  hymns  and  other  \hool:s~\,  by  which  knowledge 
and  piety  are  augmented  and  perfected  ;"  see  p.  248  above. 
In  the  New  Testament,  Jesus  himself  speaks  of  "  the  Law, 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms ;"  Luke  24:  44,  comp.  24:  27. 
The  Psalms  was  in  the  same  manner  the  leading  book  in  the 
Hagiography  of  Josephus. 

In  Melito,  who  comes  next  after  Josephus,  we  find  no  ex- 
press designation  of  the  triplex  portions  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
for  we  find  him  following  in  all  probability  the  arrangement 
of  the  Greek  copy  which  he  consulted,  and  which  may  or 
may  not  have  agreed  with  some  Hebrew  copies  of  that  time. 
Still  he  makes  only  twenty-two  books,  even  if  we  include 
Esther,  (which  is  now  omitted  in  his  list  as  represented  in 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  273 

the  extract  from  Eusebius,  but)  which  was  in  all  proba- 
bility originally  included  by  Melito  himself;  see  p.  257 
above.  In  fact  he  makes,  as  we  may  say,  a  quadruplex 
division,  the  Law,  the  Historical  Boohs  (including  Chroni- 
cles, but  excluding  Ezra),  the  Hagiography  (which  he  ar- 
ranges in  one  continuous  body.  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesias- 
tes,  and  Canticles),  and  the  Prophets.  But  he  has  evidently 
gone  in  the  steps  of  Josephus  as  to  \}i\<d  numher  of  the  books, 
and  the  combinations  of  them  in  order  to  make  twenty-two. 
See  App.  No.  IV. 

So  is  it  too  with  Origen,  who  expressly  declares  there  are 
twenty-two  books,  and  who  arranges  the  historical  books  in 
like  manner  as  Melito,  i.  e.  after  the  tenor  of  the  order  in  the 
Sept.  Notable  is  it,  that  he  places  Job  and  Esther  last  of  all. 
He  also  brings  the  Hagiography  of  Josephus  into  immediate  and 
local  connection  and  consecution.  In  his  list,  moreover,  which 
is  cited  by  Eusebius,  (as  in  the  case  of  Melito  above),  one  link 
in  the  chain  of  twenty-two  is  omitted,  viz.  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets ;  doubtless  by  mere  mistake  in  transcribing ;  see 
p.  260  above.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
canon  of  Josephus  is  the  canon  of  Origen,  although  he  has 
yielded  some  deference  to  the  Septuagint  as  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  some  particular  books.  See  the  original  in  Appen- 
dix No.  V. 

Exactly  in  the  same  way  are  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment reckoned  in  the  fifty-ninth  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Lao- 
dicea.  These  books  are  expressly  said  to  be  twenty-two  ;  and 
moreover  the  Chronicles  immediately  follow  the  Kings,  and 
are  followed  themselves  by  Ezra,  just  as  they  are  in  the  list 
of  Origen  ;  i.  e.  here  also  the  arrangement  is  partly  in  con- 
formity with  that  of  the  Septuagint.  In  the  same  manner  the 
canon  of  the  Council  ranges  together  the  books  of  the  Hagi- 
ography, in  conformity  with  what  is  indicated  by  Josephus. 
See  Appendix  No.  VI.  for  the  original. 

Cyrill  of  Jerusalem  (Cat.  IV.)  presents  another  list  in 
which  he  says  expressly  that  there  are  but  twenty-two  books. 
His  arrangement  also  is  Septuagintai,  and  is  the  same  as  th^t 


274  §  12.   SAMENESS  OP  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

of  Origen,  save  that  he  assigns  an  earlier  place  to  the  book 
of  Esther,  along  with  the  other  historical  books  ;  see  App.  No. 
VII.  So  is  it  with  Gregory  Nazianzen,  II.  Carm.  XXXIII ; 
see  Appendix  No.  VIII.  The  like  is  true  of  Athanasius ; 
who,  (in  his  Epist.  Fest.  I.  p.  961),  makes  in  general  the 
same  number  and  order  of  books  as  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  i.  e. 
twenty-two  books  arranged  generally  in  the  manner  of  the 
Septuagint.  But  there  is  this  difference  between  them,  viz. 
Athanasius  counts  Ruth  by  itself,  and  omits  Esther;  which 
seems  to  favour  the  supposition  that  he  meant  to  omit  Esther, 
inasmuch  as  he  makes  twenty-two  without  it.  Indeed  in  the 
sequel,  he  expressly  mentions  Esther  among  the  books  "  ov 
'Aavovi(^ovi8va  fiiv  .  .  .  dvayivcooxofxeva  ds^  not  canonical, 
hilt  permitted  to  he  read^^  viz.  by  the  catechumens,  and  these 
books,  he  tells  us,  were  such  as  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the 
Wisdom  of  Sirach,  Judith,  and  Tobit.  See  Appendix  No.  IX. 
In  the  Synopsis  Script.  Sac.  in  Athanas.  0pp.  II.  p.  126  seq., 
the  very  same  thing  is  said  respecting  Esther  and  the  apoc- 
ryphal books,  with  tlie  declaration  that  "  they  are  read  only 
by  catechumens,"  i.  e.  they  are  not  publicly  read  with  the 
proper  Scriptures.     See  Appendix  No.  X. 

Epiphanius  (De  Mens,  et  Ponder  c.  22,  23)  avers,  that  the 
Hebrews  numbered  only  twenty-two  books,  so  as  to  corre- 
spond with  their  alphabet,  making  five  of  the  books  double, 
"just  as  five  letters  of  the  alphabet  are  double,"  i.  e.  have  two 
forms.  He  includes  Esther  in  his  list ;  but  he  makes  a  dif- 
ferent division  of  the  books  from  that  of  any  other  ancient 
writer.  Job  is  placed  after  Joshua,  the  Psalms  after  Judges 
and  Puth,  the  Chronicles  hefore  Samuel  and  Kings,  the 
Twelve  Prophets  before  the  others,  etc. ;  evidently  an  attempt 
at  a  kind  of  chronological  arrangement  in  conformity  with  the 
views  of  the  author.     See  App.  No.  XL 

The  Council  of  Hippo  (A.  D.  393),  in  Can.  XXXVI,  ad- 
mit indeed  several  of  the  apocryphal  books  into  their  Canon  ; 
but  they  preserve  all  the  Jewish  ones,  and  put  Daniel  between 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  and  Chronicles  next  after  Kings ; 
thus  showing  that  no  regard  was  paid  by  them  to  such  an  or- 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  275 

der  as  the  Talmudic ;  See  Appendix  No.  XII.  With  this 
agrees  cap.  47  of  the  third  Council  of  Carthage  (A.  D.  397)  ; 
Mansi,  Concil.  Coll.  III.  891.     See  in  App.  No.  XIII. 

Jerome,  (Prol.  Gal.)  as  we  have  seen  p.  251  above,  makes 
twenty-two  books  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  arranges  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  Hagiography  mostly  in  like  manner 
with  the  Talmud  ;  but  still  he  comprises  only  7iine  books  in 
the  Kethubim,  while  the  Talraudists  make  eleven.  He  then 
goes  on  to  say,  that  "  some  [so  did  the  Rabbins  of  that  day] 
enrol  Ruth  and  Lamentations  among  the  Hagiography,  [in- 
stead of  uniting  them  with  Judges  and  Jeremiah,  as  he  does], 
and  think  that  they  should  be  reckoned  among  their  number, 
and  thus  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  would  amount  to 
twenty-four."  Here  then  is  the  very  first  notice  of  this  novel 
method  of  making  out  twenty-four  books ;  and  at  the  same 
time  it  is  the  first  express  information  which  we  have  of  a 
triplex  division  of  the  Scriptures  differing,  as  to  the  particular 
books  comprised,  from  that  of  Josephus.  The  Rabbins  of 
his  day,  with  whom  he  studied  so  long  in  Palestine,  had,  as 
it  would  seem,  already  made  this  innovation  upon  the  ancient 
arrangement  both  as  to  order  and  as  to  number,  and  from  them 
he  learned  it.  See  the  whole  passage  in  Appendix  No. 
XIV. 

Hilary  (Prol.  in  Psalm.)  states  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament to  be  twenty-two  ;  but  he  adds,  that  "  to  some  it 
seemed  good,  by  adding  Tobit  and  Judith,  to  make  out  twen- 
ty-four books,  according  to  the  number  of  letters  in  the  Greek 
alphabet."  The  some  here  spoken  of  must  of  course  have 
been  found  among  Christians ;  for  that  the  Jews  admitted  the 
books  in  question  to  their  Palestine  Canon,  there  is  not  one 
spark  of  evidence.  Everything  shows  the  contrary.  See 
App.  No.  XV. 

Rufinus  (P^xpos.  in  Symb.  Apost.),  a  contemporary  of  Je- 
rome and  Hilary,  reckons  tioenty-two  books,  following  in  the 
main  the  order  of  the  Septuagint.  In  his  canon  all  our  pre- 
sent scriptural  Hebrew  books  are  included  ;  Daniel  is  placed 
where  we  place  him,  and  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and 


276  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

Canticles,  come  last ;  the  very  copy,  in  this  respect,  of  Jo- 
sephus'  Canon.    See  App.  No.  XVI. 

From  this  somewhat  extensive  range  of  investigation,  it 
seems  perfectly  evident,  that  the  Hagiographal  division  of  the 
Scriptures,  as  taught  by  Rabbies  to  Jerome,  and  afterwards 
sanctioned  by  the  Talmud,  belonged  at  this  period  only  to 
some  of  the  Jewish  schools,  and  had  no  concern  with  the  usu- 
al and  general  classification.  I  can  find  nothing  in  all  anti- 
quity that  hints  at  such  a  classification  as  theirs,  before  the 
notice  which  Jerome  takes  of  it ;  although  it  has  so  often 
been  talked  about,  and  reasoned  from,  as  if  it  had  long  pre- 
ceded the  Christian  era. 

The  question  I  take  to  be  now  finally  settled,  that  the 
Babylonish  Talmud  itself  was  not  originated  until  after  or 
about  the  time  of  Jerome,  i.  e.  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  and 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  and  not  completed  at  least 
until  the  sixth  century.  The  traditional  authors,  who  com- 
menced the  work,  were  Rabbi  Ashi  and  Rabbi  Jose.  The 
huge  Mi&h-mash  which  this  work  contains,  must  have  been  the 
production  of  many  heads  and  many  hands.  But  the  au- 
thority, which  it  has  ever  retained  among  the  superstitious 
and  Pharisaic  Jews,  is  almost  without  limits.  In  fact,  like 
the  Romish  traditions,  it  has  been  placed  above  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  The  Rabbins  are  accustomed  to  say :  "  The 
Scripture  is  water,  but  the  Talmud  is  wine."  Hence  it  is  easy 
to  see  why  it  has  had  so  much  influence  on  the  arrangement 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  for  some  1200  years.  The  passage 
which  has  settled  this  matter  for  the  Jews  is  in  the  Tract. 
Baba  Bathra,  fol.  14.  col.  2,  and  runs  as  follows :  bia  "'^"^'o 
ji^i'ii^i  bijipTH'^i  nia'Ti  d^2b?ai  b5<*,^'U  c^-jsvji  Ti^^rr^  d^5<">S3 
n^npi  'i'bi2J73i  m^i<i  d^bnn  m-i  d^mr.D  b'r  "p-id  •  •  •  ^u:3>  d-^aTUi 
:  d^^^n  'i^n'ii  ^rdx  b5<'i3'i  r.ispi  d^-n^ujn  'ni^a  i.  e.  "  the  order  of 
the  Prophets  is  thus  :  Joshua  and  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings, 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  and  the  Twelve  [minor  pro- 
phets] .  .  .  The  order  of  the  Kethubim  is  thus:  Ruth,  Psalms 
and  Job,  and  Proverbs,  and  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Songs 
and  Lamentations,  Daniel,  Esther  and  the  Chronicles." 


§  12.    SAMENESS   OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  277 

I  have  omitted  the  Pentateuch,  because  the  order  of  that 
is  every  where  and  always  one  and  the  same.  I  would  fur- 
ther remark,  that  as  to  the  order  o^  the  books  in  the  Prophets 
and  Kethubim,  and  even  the  mimher  of  them  resijeetivelj,. 
there  is  no  uniformity  among  the  highest  Jewish  authorities.. 
The  Talmudists  make  twenty-four  books,  and  arrange  them' 
as  above.  But  the  Masorites,  whom  I  should  regard  as  of 
higher  authority,  arrange  the  leading  prophets  thus :  Isaiah,. 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,.the  Twelve  ;  while  the  Kethubim  are  thus 
arranged  :  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ruth,  Canticles,  Ecclesi- 
astes,  Lamentations,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Chronicles.  Both' 
make  twenty-four  books,  but  in  quite  a  diverse  order.  The 
Spanish  Mss.,  and  all  the  Hebrew  Bibles  printed  from  them,, 
follow  the  Masorites  with  some  slight  variations  under  the 
Kethubim;  the  German  Mss.,  and  printed  editions  mostly  fol- 
low the  Talmud,  but  also  with  variations  of  the  like  kind.  In 
making  out  twenty-four  books,  Ruth  is  separated  from  Judges,. 
and  Lamentations  from  Jeremiah  ;  which,  on  the  contrary,  Je- 
rome unites  respectively  in  one  book,  and  so  makes  twenty-two 
of  the  whole.  Nearly  all  antiquity  counted  I.  II.  Samuel, 
I.  II.  Kings,  I.  II.  Chronicles,  and  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  re- 
spectively, as  one  book  ;  the  Septuagint  count  the  four  first 
of  these  as  four  parts  of  one  and  the  same  book,  which  they 
name  Kings. 

Different  from  the  order  both  of  the  Talmud  and  the  Ma- 
sorites, is  that  of  Origen  and  Jerome.  Both  of  them  make 
only  twenty-two  books.  But  Origen  places  Chronicles  and 
Ezra  immediately  after  kings ;  Jerome,  near  the  end  of  the 
Kethubim,  (for  with  him  the  closing  part  of  the  Canon  stands 
thus  :  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther).  Origen  places  Psalms,  Pro- 
verbs, Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Job,  next  after  Ezra  (including 
Nehemiah)  ;  Jerome's  arrangement  after  the  book  of  Kings 
is  thus :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  the  Twelve.  Origen  ar- 
ranges after  Job  thus  :  the  Twelve,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel ;  Jerome  puts  Daniel  among  the  Hagiograpliy,  and 
next  before  Chronicles.  As  the  extract  from  Origen  in  Eu- 
sebius  omits  the  Twelve^  we  should  not  know  how  Origen  ar- 

24 


27&  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

ranged  them,  had  not  Riifinns  given  ns  a  version  of  him.  In 
this,  the  Twelve  stands  next  after  Canticles  and  before  Job. 
Comp.  the  lists  of  Origen  and  Jerome,  in  App.  No?.  Y.  XIV. 
I  have  now  given  the  reader  a  fair  specimen  of  the  leading 
arrangements  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  ancient  times,  as 
it  respects  the  Prophets  and  the  Kethubim.  No  two  are 
alike.  Even  the  Masorites  and  the  Talrandists  differ  from 
each  other ;  Jerome  differs  from  both,  and  Origen  from  him. 
And  so,  if  we  compare  Melito,  the  Laodicean  Council,  the 
Apostolic  Canons,  Cyrill,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Athanasius, 
Hilary,  Epiphanius,  the  Council  of  Hippo,  Jerome,  Iiufinus, 
etc.,  scarcely  any  two  of  them  are  alike  throughout.  And 
this  is  almost  the  case  even  with  Mss.  and  editions  in  lat«? 
times. 

As  to  thie  conceit  of  twenty-four  books,  instead  of  twenty- 
two,  it  must  have  been  a  late  affair,  as  has  already  been  sug- 
gested.    The  Talmud  made  this  out  by  separating  Judges 
and  Ruth,  .Jeremiah  and  Lamentations.     Sixtus  Senensis,  in 
his  Biblioth.  Sanct.  I.  p.  2,  has  given  us  the  alleged  reasons 
of  the  Jews  for  such  an  arrangement.     These  are  a  fit  accom- 
paniment of  the  arrangement  itself.     The  substance  is,  that 
the  ancient  Jews  wrote  the  unpronounceable  name  of  Jeho- 
vah thus  'I'll ,  i.  e.   with  three  Yodhs,  (which  of  course  com- 
prise great  mysteries),  and  so  they  added  two  more  books  to 
the  number  22,  in  order  to  correspond  with  the  Yodh  thrice 
repeated  in  honour  of  the  name  of  Jehovah.     The  Greek 
Versions  would  naturally  and  easily  ado[)t  the  number  twen- 
ty-foury  because  it  corresponded  with  the  Greek  alphabet. 
The  Christians  had  another  reason,  according  to  Sixtus,  for 
admitting  twenty-four  books  ;  which  was,   that  .John,  in   the 
Apocalypse,  has  introduced  twenty-four  elders  as  adoring  him 
who  was  about  to  open  tlie  sealed  book ! 

Trifling  and  futile  as  all  this  is,  yet  from  the  authority  and 
example  of  the  Talmud,  the  Twenty-Four  has  even  become  a 
technical  name  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ;  and  it  stands  on 
the  first  page  as  a  title  (nrnix;!  d*^"}"::")  to  the  majority  of 
Mss.  and  editions.     All  antiquity  however  made,  as  we  have 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  279 

seen,  but  ticenty-two  ;  and  in  this  respect  the  assertion  of  Jo- 
sephus,  that  the  Jews  have  twenty-two  sacred  books,  stands 
most  amply  sustained  and  justified. 

Important  consequences  flow  from  these  investigations  and 
conclusions.  I  can  mention  only  a  few  of  them,  which  have 
respect  to  views  often  presented  by  some  recent  critics,  and 
which  have  a  slender  support  indeed  in  the  history  of  the 
Canon. 

(1)  It  has  become  general  to  speak  of  Chronicles,  as  the 
last  book  in  the  Hebrew  Canon,  and  to  draw  important  con- 
clusions as  to  the  authenticity  of  this  composition  from  this 
source.  Eichhorn  (Einl.  §  7),  De  Wette  (Einl.  §  10,  and 
Comm.  in  Matt.  23:  35),  and  many  others,  appeal  to  Matt. 
23:  35  as  certain  evidence,  that  the  book  of  Chronicles  was 
the  last  in  the  Old  Testament  in  our  Saviour's  day.  The 
words  in  question  are  :  "  That  on  you  [the  Jews]  may  come 
all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth,  from  the  blood  of 
the  righteous  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias,  son  of  Bara- 
chias,  whom  ye  slew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar." 
Here,  says  Eichhorn  and  others  after  him,  is  an  example 
taken  from  the  first  and  the  last  part  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
and  the  design  of  Jesus  evidently  is,  to  say  that  on  the  Jews 
should  come  the  consummation  of  punishment  for  all  the  mar- 
tyrdoms related  from  first  to  last  in  their  Scriptures.  Con- 
sequently the  book  of  Clironicles  must  have  stood  last  in  their 
sacred  volume. 

Notwithstanding  the  all  but  universal  assent  to  this  method 
of  reasoning,  I  must  still  believe  that  it  has  not  any  solid  ba- 
sis. How  does  it  follow,  that  the  book  of  Chronicles  is  the 
last  in  the  whole  volume,  when  the  Kethubim  of  Josephus, 
viz.  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  yea  all  tho 
books  that  we  commonly  name  prophets,  might  have  stood  af- 
ter the  Chronicles,  and  yet  the  reasoning  have  still  been  the 
same  as  most  critics  now  suppose  it  to  be  ?  The  reasoning  is 
founded  on  the  historical  part,  and  that  only,  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament ;  and  it  is  enough  of  course  to  answer  all  its  demands, 
that  the  book  of  Chronicles  was  the  last  in  the  historical  se- 


280      §  12.  SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

ries.  It  is  mere  gratuitous  assumption  to  suppose  any  more  ; 
for  the  present  arrangement  in  our  English  Bibles  would 
support  the  reasoning  in  question,  just  as  well  as  the  present 
Jewish  arrangement  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

But  there  are  several  things,  on  the  other  hand,  to  show 
that  the  whole  process  of  the  reasoning  here,  as  well  as  the 
assumed  historical  basis  of  it,  is  altogether  incapable  of  any- 
adequate  defence.  (1)  The  Zechariah  of  2  Chron.  24;  19 — 
22,  to  which  the  critics  in  question  appeal,  was  the  son  of 
Jihoiada,  and  not  of  Barachias  as  Christ  declares.  The 
conciliation  of  the  two  passages,  by  supposing  that  Zechari- 
ah's  father  bore  both  the  names  of  Jehoiada  and  Barachias, 
is  unsatisfactory  in  this  case  ;  for  why  should  we  suppose 
that  the  Saviour  ap{)ealed  to  any  other  name  of  Zechariah's 
father  than  that  which  is  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  in 
case  he  really  meant  to  designate  the  Zechariah  of  2  Chron.  ? 
But  the  Neologists  have  a  shorter  method :  '  The  Evange- 
list's recollection  was  faulty,  and  he  wrote  Barachias  where 
Jesus  had  named  Jehoiada^  I  am  not  prepared,  however,  to 
admit  this  solution.  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  believe,  that 
Jesus  would  have  made  such  an  appeal  as  is  here  supposed. 
Examine  for  a  moment  the  chronology  of  this  martyrdom ; 
for  its  date  must  at  least  be  some  840  years  before  Christ. 
And  are  eight  centuries  and  a  half  to  be  leaped  over,  in  such 
a  representation,  because  no  martyrdoms,  no  persecutions  by 
the  Jews,  could  be  found  in  all  that  period  ?  This  is  contra- 
ry to  probability,  and  contrary  to  fact.  I  affirm  the  latter, 
because  Jeremiah  (26:  23)  tells  us,  that  Jehoiakim  (about 
GOO  B.  C.)  brought  Urijahthe  Prophet  out  of  Egypt,  whith- 
er he  had  fled,  and  slew  him  with  the  sword.  Here  then  is 
a  martyr-murder  200  years  and  more  after  that  of  Zechariah 
the  son  of  Jehoiada.  What  is  to  be  said  also  of  Manasseh's 
murders,  who  "  filled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood,"  more 
than  a  century  after  the  murder  of  Zechariah  ?  And  besides 
all  this,  did  not  the  partizans  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  such 
men  as  Jason  and  his  compeers,  persecute  and  destroy  pious 
persons  living  in  their  days  'i     The  denial  of  all  this  would 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  281 

be  in  part  a  denial  of  what  is  certain,  and  in  part  of  what  in 
all  respects  is  probable.  Jews  who  could  sell  themselves  to 
Antiochus  in  order  to  introduce  the  heathen  rites,  must  needs 
persecute  those  who  stood  in  the  way  of  their  nefarious  de- 
signs. In  a  word,  to  terminate  the  history  of  Jewish  perse- 
cutions at  a  period  of  800  and  more  years  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  in  an  indignant  charge  of  accumulated  guilt  upon 
the  nation,  is  in  itself  incredible  ;  I  must  say — to  my  mind  it 
is  preposterous.  Yet  such  is  the  reasoning  of  the  critics  in 
question. 

(2)  It  is  not  at  all  essential  or  capable  of  proof,  that  the 
histories  which  we  have  of  the  Jews  after  their  return  and 
down  to  the  Christian  era,  altogether  imperfect  and  few  as 
they  are,  si 'o  aid  have  preserved  an  account  of  the  murder  of 
Zechariah,  as  mentioned  by  the  Saviour.  A  comparatively 
recent  murder  of  such  a  man  might  have  taken  place,  and  yet 
not  have  been  related  at  all  by  Josephus  ;  for  we  well  know 
that  his  silence  is  not  any  proof  that  certain  things  did  not 
take  place,  e.  g.  the  massacre  by  Herod  at  Bethlehem,  the 
Saviour's  appearance,  claims,  miracles,  etc.*  That  we  lack 
the  history  of  the  son  of  Barachias,  is  no  evidence  that  there 
was  no  such  person.  A  pi'ophet  he  is  not  said  to  be  in  Matt. 
24:  oo  ;  it  is  only  said  that  his  blood  was  that  of  the  righteous. 
And  if  in  Luke  11:  51  he  seems  to  be  called  2i  prophet,  yet  it 
is  plainly  in  that  sense  in  which  distinguished  pious  men  in 
general  are  sometimes  called  prophets  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
(e.  g.  in  1  Chron.  IG:  22.  Ps.  105:  15)  ;  for  here  Ahel  is  also 
named  as  a  prophet,  in  the  same  sense  as  Zechariah.  No 
good  reason  can  be  given,  then,  why  Jesus  should  not,  or  did 
not,  refer  to  some  recent  event  in  the  way  of  murderous  per- 
secution. The  very  nature  of  the  case  renders  this  highly 
probable.  Particularly  does  the  mention  of  the  minute  cir- 
cumstance, that  "  Zacharias  was  slain  between  the  temple  and 

*  After  all  the  defences  that  have  been  made  of  the  passage  in  Jose- 
phus respecting  Christ,  I  feel  constrained  to  say  of  it :  Sapit  cmenda- 
torein.  To  me  it  seems  that  Josephus  must  have  said  more,  if  he  said 
anything. 

24* 


282  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEAVISH  CANON. 

the  altar,"  savour  of  an  event  winch  was  fresh  in  the  recol- 
lection of  the  Jews  who  were  addressed.  And  then  the 
charge  implied  in  ifforevGare,  te  slew,  has  all  the  appearance 
of  imputing  personal  guilt.     In  fact  it  must  involve  it. 

(3)  But  if  any  one  insists  that  we  must  needs  have  some 
other  historical  account  of  the  murder  of  a  later  or  recent 
Zacharias,  than  that  apparently  contained  in  the  Evangelist ; 
■why  may  we  not  give  credit  to  Origen,  who  (in  Tract.  XXVI. 
in  Matt.)  states  ihait  Zacharias,  the  father  of  John  the  Baptist, 
was  murdered  by  the  Jews  in  the  temple  ?  He  again  asserts 
this  in  Tom.  XL  in  Matt.  p.  225  ed.  Huet.  Basil,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  Cyrill  of  Alexandria,  Peter  of  Alexandria,  Theophy- 
lact,  and  others,  agree  with  Origen  in  this  statement ;  Thilo, 
Cod.  Apoc.  N.  Test.  I.  Prol.  LXIY.  In  the  Protevangelium 
Jacobi,  the  most  respectable  and  perhaps  the  oldest  of  all  the 
apocryphal  gospels  (Origen  makes  mention  of  it),  the  murder 
of  the  same  Zacharias  is  circumstantially  related,  cap.  XXIII. 
seq.  It  is  plain,  then,  that  a  very  general  tradition  existed 
in  ancient  times,  as  to  the  murder  of  Zacharias  the  father  of 
John,  by  the  Jews,  and  probably  by  Herod's  instigation.  It 
is  no  objection  to  the  truth  of  this,  that  the  father  of  Zachari- 
as is  not  mentioned  in  Luke  1:  5.  Barachias  was  a  very 
common  name  among  the  Jews,  and  might  well  have  been 
the  name  of  Zacharias'  father.  The  probability  that  the 
opinion  of  Origen  and  other  ancients  is  correct  here,  is  even 
strengthened,  by  that  exegesis  of  Luke  11;  51,  which  would 
make  Zacharias  a  prophet  in  the  usual  sense  of  that  word  ; 
for  Luke  1:  67 — 79  plainly  represents  him  as  uttering  pro- 
phecy. 

Why  may  we  not  conclude  now,  that  neither  the  evange- 
lists have  made  a  mistake  about  the  son  of  Barachias ;  nor 
the  Saviour  charged  on  the  Jews  the  commission  of  a  deed 
done  more  than  eight  centuries  before  ?  And  above  all,  why 
may  we  not  say,  that  the  whole  of  the  conclusions  about  the 
book  of  Chronicles  and  its  location,  which  are  built  on  assum- 
ing for  it  the  last  place  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  is  "such 
stuff  as  di'eams  are  made  of?"     Nay,  I  venture  to  say,  that 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  283 

the  assumption  in  question  is  historically  and  demonstrably 
false.  Josephus  so  represents  the  Kethubim,  thai  the  Chron- 
icles are  excluded,  and  must  have  been  united  with  the  divi- 
sion of  the  Prophets  ;  as  Philo  had  done  before  him,  and  also 
the  New  Testament.  The  first  list  of  the  successive  and  par- 
ticular books  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  which  we  have,  is 
that  of  Melito  (about  170  A.  D.),  which  places  Chronicles 
next  after  Kings  ;  the  same  does  Origen  in  his  list ;  the  same 
does  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  the  Canones  ApostoL,  Cyrill 
of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Athanasius,  the  Synopsis 
Scripturae  in  Athanas.  0pp.,  Epiphanius  (who  even  puts  it 
before  Kings),  the  Council  of  Hippo  (A.  D.  393),  Hilary,  and 
Rufinus.  Jerome,  who  drank  in  Rabbinical  lore  for  twenty 
years,  is  the  only  father  among  all  of  any  name,  who  puts 
Chronicles  among  the  Kethubim ;  and  he  puts  after  it  Ezra 
(including  Nehemiah),  and  Esther.  Besides  all  this,  the  very 
fact  that  the  Septuagintal  arrangement  preserves  the  same 
order  as  all  the  early  fathers,  in  regard  to  the  book  of  Chron- 
icles, shows  that  the  Hebrew  Mss.  from  which  they  translated 
did  not  exhibit  the  Talmudical  arrangement,  but  plainly  that 
of  Josephus.  Most  of  the  lists  of  books,  to  which  I  have  now 
referred, , specifically  declare,  that  they  give  the  books  as  they 
are  arranged  by  the  Jews. 

It  is  out  of  all  critical  question,  then,  to  admit  that  Chroni- 
cles was  the  last  book  of  Scripture  in  our  Saviour's  time ; 
and  out  of  all  question  to  admit  those  views  in  criticism,  which 
are  built  merely  on  the  assumption  of  such  a  fact.  The  Lib- 
eralists  must  give  us  some  reasons  better  than  such  ones,  in 
order  to  induce  us  to  walk  in  the  paths  that  they  pursue. 

In  this  connection,  let  us  return  once  more,  for  a  moment, 
to  the  book  of  Daniel.  As  I  have  already  stated,  the  main 
argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  independently 
of  its  account  of  miraculous  or  strange  events,  is  that  which 
is  drawn  from  the  alleged  fact,  that  the  work  has  been  assign- 
ed to  the  division  of  the  Kethubim  ;  and  so,  as  the  process  of 
reasoning  is,  it  must  have  been  composed  long  after  the  time 
when  Daniel  is  said  to  have  lived,  and  after  the  division  em- 


284  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

bracing  the  Prophets  was  brought  to  a  close  and  completed. 
But  what  says  fact  ^    Josephus'  arrangement  necessarily,  as 
we  have  seen,  includes  Daniel  among  the  Prophets.     Of 
course  when  this  is  settled,  it  follows   with  almost  absolute 
certainty,  that  the  son  of  Sirach,  Philo,  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  do  the  same,  inasmuch  as  they  classify  the  sa- 
cred books  in  the  same  manner  as  he  does.     We  know  for 
certainty  this  fact  in  respect  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  as  it  con- 
cerns the  later  writers  ;  for  we  have  their  lists  both  of  the 
names  and  the  order  of  all  the  books.     Melito  places  Daniel 
among  the  prophets  and  before  Ezekiel.    The  same  does  Ori- 
gen.      The   Council  of   Laodicea  place   Daniel  next  after 
Ezekiel,  and  of  course  among  the  prophets.     The  same  do 
the  Canones  Apostol.,  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  Athanasius,  Synopsis  Scripturae  in  Athanas.  0pp.,  (in 
Epiphanius,  de  Mens,  et  Ponder,  the  book  is  by  some  mis- 
take omitted).     The  Council  of  Hippo,  like  Melito  and  Ori- 
gen,  place  it  hefore  Ezekiel,  as  also  does  Hilary  ;  and  Rufinus 
places  it  next  after  Ezekiel.     Like  Josephus,  too,  this  last 
writer  puts   at  the  close  of  the  sacred  volume  the   Hagio- 
graphal  books,  viz.  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles. 
Jerome  alone,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  Rabbinical   usage 
in  his  day,  puts   Daniel  among  the  Hagiography ;  and  after 
it  he  puts   Chronicles,  Ezra  (with  Nehemiah),  and  Esther. 
The   Talmud  then  stands  alone   in  placing  the  book  of 
Daniel  among  the  Hagiography,  with  the  exception  that  Je- 
rome makes  the  like  arrangement,  in  giving  an  account  of 
what  was  customary  in  his  time  among  the  Rabbins  who  had 
taught  him.     But  even  he  does  not  accord  with  the  Talmud, 
either  as  to  the  number  or  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  Pro- 
phets  and  Kethubim.     All   this  proves,  beyond  a   question, 
what  a  variety  there   was  in   the  arrangement  of  particular 
books  of  the  Scriptures,  and  how  little  of  significance  was  ori- 
ginally attached  to  this  circumstance.     The  Se[)tuagint  Ver- 
sion, it  must  surely  be  admitted,  was   made  from  Hebrew 
Mss. ;  and  how   comes  it  to  i)ass  that  the  arrangement  is  so 
diiferent  here  from  that  of  the   Talmud  ?     The  proof  that 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  285 

Daniel,  among  the  ancients  universally,  was  regarded  as  one 
of  the  prophets,  is  above  all  exception.  The  fact  that  Jose- 
phus  extracts  so  copiously  from  him,  and  speaks  of  him  as 
one  of  the  greatest  of  all  the  prophets,  cannot  be  disguised. 
Near  the  close  of  Antiq.  X.  he  says :  "  Daniel  was  distin- 
guished and  illustrious  because  of  the  glory  of  being  the  friend 
of  God.  .  .  .  He  was  wonderfully  fortunate  as  one  of  the 
greatest  prophets  ;  and  during  his  life  time  he  had  much  hon- 
our and  fame  from  kings  and  from  the  multitude,  and  now 
when  dead  he  has  an  everlasting  remembrance."  Our  Sa- 
viour too  has  said  of  a  certain  prediction,  that  it  was  "  uttered 
by  Daniel  the  prophet ;"  Matt.  24:  15.  Mark  13:  14. 

We  have  now  had  opportunity  to  see,  how  utterly  incon- 
gruous the  Talmudic  arrangement  of  the  Scriptures  is  with 
all  the  other  ancient  testimony  respecting  this  matter — testi- 
mony, by  the  way,  which  is  all  of  it  older  than  that  of  the 
Talmud.  Even  the  Masorites  of  Tiberias,  although  they 
agree  with  the  Talmudists  as  to  the  twenty-four  books  of 
Scripture,  and  as  to  the  number  of  books  respectively  be- 
longing to  the  Hagiography  and  to  the  Prophets,  do  still  re- 
fuse to  accede  to  the  preposterous  arrangement  of  placing 
the  greater  Prophets  in  the  order  of  the  Talmud,  viz.  Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel,  Isaiah.  The  Masorites  and  every  ancient 
authority,  one  and  all,  unanimously  declare  the  order  to  be 
thus :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel.  It  is  worth  our  while  to 
listen  for  a  moment  to  the  reason  of  the  Talmudists  for  their 
peculiar  arrangement,  in  order  that  we  may  learn  how  to  ap- 
preciate their  decision  in  such  matters :  fr^s-D  D'^-b'2'i  iT^a 
n^aitJi  i<Dn'n*in  nxr^n  bxptn^i  ^^sn'n^n  n^^io  n^^si'iT  ^i3n"l^^ 
i<n^n2i  xsnninb  wn^iin  'js^s'sd  j^n^ns  h-i^id  n^:;":;^i  s^n-ana 
fc^r'cn:?  ;  i.  e.  '  since  the  book  of  Kings  ends  in  desolation, 
and  all  of  Jeremiah  is  desolation ;  and  Ezekiel  in  the 
commencement  is  desolation,  and  at  the  close,  consolation  ; 
and  Isaiah  is  all  consolation,  they  [the  men  of  the  Great  Syn- 
agogue] joined  desolation  to  desolation  [Jeremiah  to  the  close 
of  the  book  of  Kings],  and  consolation  to  consolation  [Isaiah 
to  the  last  part  of  Ezekiel].'     Yet  so  incongruous  is  this,  that 


286  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANOX. 

Abarbanel  (Pref.  in  Comm.  in  Is.)  does  not  hesitate  to  say : 
"  Truly  our  predecessors,  the  sons  of  the  captivity,  did  not 
arrange  the  books  thus  [viz.  as  the  Tahnud  does],  but  they 
placed  Isaiah  at  the  head." 

Enough  for  this  topic.  Clear  as  the  light  is  it,  that  if  any 
regard  is  to  be  paid  to  all  the  testimony  of  antiquity  which 
precedes  the  Talmud,  the  decisions  of  the  latter  as  to  the 
nimiher  or  order  of  the  books  in  the  Prophets  and  Hagiogra- 
phy,  are  entitled  to  little  or  no  authority.  All  the  reasoning 
and  conclusions  about  certain  books  in  the  Bible,  which  are 
built  on  the  Talmudic  arrangement  of  particulars,  must  of 
course  be  without  any  good  foundation.  In  fact,  as  already 
remarked,  the  Septuaglntal  arrangement  of  the  Scriptural 
books,  which  at  all  events  preceded  the  Christian  era,  does 
of  itself  demonstrate,  that  when  it  was  made,  the  Hebrew 
originals  did  not  follow  the  Talmudic  order. 

If  the  reader  has  still  any  scruples  whether  he  is  not  to  be 
bound  by  the  decisions  of  the  Talmudic  doctors,  in  relation 
to  critical  matters,  of  this  kind,  it  is  proper  that  he  should 
turn  his  attention  for  a  moment  to  their  decision  in  regard 
to  the  authorship  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  It  runs  thus  : 
"And  who  wrote  them  ?  [the  Old  Testament  books].  Moses 
wrote  his  book,  and  the  section  of  Balaam,  and  Job.  Joshua 
wrote  his  book,  and  eight  verses  in  the  Law ;  Samuel  wrote 
his  book.  Judges,  and  Ruth ;  David  wrote  the  book  of 
Psalms,  with  the  assistance  of  ten  of  the  elders,  by  the  aid  of 
Adam  the  first  man,  of  Melchizedek,  of  Abraham,  of  Moses,  of 
Ileman,  of  Jeduthun,  of  Asaph,  and  of  the  three  sons  of  Korah. 
Jeremiah  wrote  his  book,  and  the  book  of  Kings  and  Lamen- 
tations. Hezekiah  and  his  assistants  wrote  Isaiah,  Proverbs, 
Canticles,  and  Coheleth  [Ecc]  ;  the  symbol  of  which  is 
p";r'ci .  The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  Avrote  Ezekiel 
and  the  Twelve,  Daniel  and  the  volume  of  Esther  ;  the  sym- 
bol of  which  is  :in:p.  Ezra  wrote  his  book  and  the  genealo- 
gy of  the  book  of  Chronicles  down  to  himself.*  Talm.  Bab. 
Megil.  fol.  10.  c.  2. 

DHD  yujirri  5  n^.^N^,  D2.'>n  mr^si  "nEO  spd  n^^  l-r.s  ^i:^  * 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JE^^'ISH  CANON.  287 

Much  comment  on  this  would  bejmseemlj  here.     The  as- 
sertion that  IMoses  wrote  Job,  will  hardly  stand  before  the 
tribunal  of  criticism.     That  Samuel  wrote  his  book  (which  of 
course  includes  I.  II.  Sam.),  which  continues  the  Jewish  histo- 
ry down  to  more  than  forty  years  after  his  death,  it  would  re- 
quire strong  faith  to  believe.     What  Psalms  Adam,  Melchize- 
dek,  and  Abraham  wrote,  the  Talmudists  might  find  it  some- 
ys'hat  difficult  to  show.  That  Jeremiah  wrote  the  book  of  Kings, 
which  carries  the  history  down  to  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Je- 
hoiachin's  captivity,  is  very  improbable.  He  must,  at  any  rate, 
have  been  more  than  a  century  old  by  that  time.     That  Hez- 
ekiah  and  his  helpers  wrote  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Canticles,  is  downright  folly  to  assert,  in  any  other  sense 
than  that  they  made  a  copy  of  these  books,  or  (as  we  say) 
copied  them  out.     It  is  singular,  that  the  word  linris ,  which 
the   Talmudists  have  here  employed,  should  have  been  so 
much  controverted.     Bertholdt,  and  after  him  Havernick  and 
others,  insist  upon  its  being  rendered  introduced^  as  if  it  were 
the  equivalent  of  ^^"^^si^  ;  which  seems  to  me  little  short  of  a 
monstrosity  in  philology.     Others  have   supposed   ^nris  to 
mean,  as  often  elsewhere,  icrote  in  the  sense  of  composing  ; 
which  would  be  attributing  more  absurdity  to  the  Talmudists 
than  they  were  probably  guilty  of.     The  truth  of  the  matter 
seems  to  be  very  simple.     jP3  in  Hebrew,  like  the  verb  write 
in  English,  may  mean  either  the  composition  of  a  book  in- 
cluding the  act  of  writing  it  down,  or  it  may  mean  merely 
the  act  of  an  amanuensis  or  copyist  which  reduces  it  to  wri- 
ting.    There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  Talmu- 

"(V^rj^^n  sni<  ^1^  h-j  d'^spT  nrrr  ^"i^  h'j  d^pnn  ^z^  nra  "jit 

j-i-iy^'h  "-^.a  p"':!!-'^  "ISPS  ^T'J^'o^  'r^^'p^t^  :  p^spi  '^sb-  ^20i  iiS3 
DPi^i  T^so  ^P3  5<'nts^  :  ^PGK  rh'^^Ki^  b^^^:"I  "I'i'i'  t^sri  bxpTni 


288  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

dists  borrowed  the  sentiment  respecting  the  doings  of  Heze- 
kiah  and  his  assistants  from  Prov.  25:  1,  where  it  is  said : 
"  These  are  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of  He- 
zekiah  king  of  Judah  ^p'^ns'n,  copied  out."  So  our  Enghsh 
Version ;  and  it  seems  to  have  hit  the  mark  exactly.  The 
verb  pr:^ ,  in  conj.  Hiphil,  means  to  transfer ;  hence  to  trans- 
fer from  one  book  into  another,  i.  e.  to  copy  out ;  see  Ges. 
Lex.  The  Talmud,  instead  of  saying  the  men  of  Hezekiah 
(as  the  Bible  does),  says  Hezekiah  and  his  assistants  (ir.r'iC ; 
and  instead  of  ^P'^irirvl ,  they  employ  ^nrs  as  its  equivalent. 
But  as  the  part  of  Proverbs  thus  copied  out  comprises  only 
five  chapters,  where  they  obtained  ground  for  naming  the 
whole  book  as  copied  out,  and  for  adding  Canticles  and  Ec- 
clesiastes  to  this,  i.  e.  adding  all  the  supposed  works  of  Sol- 
omon ;  above  all  whence  they  obtained  the  information  that 
Isaiah  was  also  copied^out  by  Hezekiah  and  his  assistants  ;  is 
more  than  I  can  conjecture.  Not  improbably  the  interest 
which  that  good  king  took  in  this  renowned  prophet,  and  the 
deference  that  he  paid  to  him,  may  have  occasioned  the  guess 
in  question  ;  for  more  than  guess  it  does  not  seem  to  be. 

The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  are  said  '  to  have  copied 
out  [for  public  use  ?]  Ezekiel,  the  Twelve,  Daniel,  and  the 
volume  of  Esther.'  Here  ^^rs  is  employed  in  the  same  way 
as  before,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  So  De  Wette,  Einl. 
§  14 ;  and  to  the  same  purpose  Rashi,  i.  e.  Rabbi  Solomon 
Jarchi  (f  1105),  who  undertakes  to  explain  and  to  vindicate 
this  passage  of  the  Talmud  in  his  Comm.  in  Baba  Bathra. 
His  words  are  worth  quoting,  in  order  to  display  the  genius 
of  Rabbinic  commentators :  "  The  men  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue wrote  out  (or  copied)  Ezekiel,  who  prophesied  in  exile. 
And  I  know  not  why  Ezekiel  did  not  WTite  it  [the  book]  out 
himself,  except  that  prophecy  is  not  given  for  any  one  to 
write  it  in  a  foreign  country.  They  [the  Great  Synagogue] 
wrote  it  out  after  they  returned  to  the  holy  land.  And  so,  in 
respect  to  the  book  of  Daniel  who  lived  in  exile ;  and  so,  in 
regard  to  the  volume  of  Esther.  And  as  to  the  Twelve 
Prophets,  because  their  prophecies  were  brief,  the  prophets 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  289 

did  not  themselves  write  them  down,  each  one  his  own  book. 
But  when  Ilaggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi  came  [to  the  holy 
land],  and  saw  that  the  Holy  Si)irit  was  about  to  depart,  in- 
asmuch as  they  were  the  last  prophets,  then  they  rose  up  and 
wrote  down  their  prophecies,  and  joined  those  of  the  minor 
prophets  with  them,  and  thus  made  one  large  book,  so  that 
they  might  not  be  destroyed  (or  lost)  on  account  of  their 
smallness."* 

It  is  with  great  difficulty  that  one  can  be  brought  to  believcy 
that  a  man  of  so  much  intelligence  as  Jarchi  was  really  seri-- 
ous  in  giving  such  an  account  of  this  matter.  Men  forsooth, 
according  to  him,  could  be  inspired  as  prophets,  when  in  ex- 
ile, but  it  was  unlawful  to  write  down  their  compositions  while 
in  that  state  !  And  then  nine  prophets  of  the  twelve  did  not 
write  down  their  own  compositions,  because  they  were  short! 
Were  the  Psalms  then,  which  are  shorter  still,  not  written 
down  by  their  authors  ?  And  could  not  the  nine  prophets 
who  composed  without  writing,  foresee  the  danger  of  their 
works  being  lost  or  perverted,  while  committed  to  ths  keep- 
ing of  merely  oral  tradition,  as  well  as  the  three  who  pro- 
vided .against  such  a  catastrophe  ?  But  it  is  useless  to  reason 
against  the  putid  conceits  of  Rabbins  devoted  to  the  Talmud. 
And  besides  all  that  has  been  now  said,  I  would  merely  ask 
the  question  :  Is  it  not  plain,  that,  even  on  Talmudic  ground, 
the  real  authorship  of  many  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  and 
parts  of  books,  remains  undisclosed?  The  information  given 
is  neither  extensive  enough  to  cover  the  ground  which  it  pro- 

n&<in3  r^'iT':  j<b'i5  ^'^^t.-a  j<^  nj<  i-2'jrn  bxptn^  "inns  ^h  n^b 
!3&<'^3n  "iSD  "pi  ■j'-nitb  litn'j  'nnxb  ^bx  innDi  -pxb  n:sin  nn3->b- 
n^m5<in3  i"in'iJ  -|in?3  ^-as  n'^v:2^  'in&x  Th^T2  -pi  nb'iin  n^no) 
JTi'iDT  i:in  ixni  nsD  w^k  ^^x  di::::?  d'^x'^nDri  inna  xb  miop 

bTna  ^SD  D'i5<u:3?':  d?a3)  mrjp  mjtina  lan'^i^i  nn^niKin]  ^nnst 

:d5ap  rvzna  yiync^  vihxo 

25 


290  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

fesses  to  cover,  nor  in  any  measure  satisfactory  as  to  that 
wliich  it  does  cover. 

Such  are  the  authorities,  then,  for  the  ancient  division  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  into  twenty-four  books  ;  such  for  ar- 
ranging Isaiah  after  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel ;  such  for  mixing 
together  prophecy,  history,  and  lyric  poetry  and  proverbs,  all 
under  one  category,  the  Kethuhim,  when  the  nature  of  the  case 
and  the  voice  of  antiquity  were  against  it.  It  is  in  vain  to  in- 
quire now  what  conceits  led  them  in  such  a  direction.  No 
one  can  fathom  the  depths  of  Talmudic  criticism.  The  only 
possible  way  to  receive  it,  is  to  take  it  upon  credit  and  with- 
out examination. 

Is  there  not  abundant  reason  then  to  say,  that  arguments 
against  the  genuineness  of  Daniel,  of  Chronicles,  or  of  any 
other  book  in  the  Hagiography,  on  the  ground  of  its  present 
arrangement.)  are  utterly  futile ;  inasmuch  as  they  have  no 
solid  basis  ?  Indeed  this  is  one  of  those  cases,  in  which  we 
may  say,  that  the  negative  is  capable  of  critical  demonstra- 
tion. 

After  a  minute  investisration  of  this  whole  matter  of  the 
classification  and  order  of  the  sacred  books,  one  may  well  be 
surprised  at  finding  such  an  intelligent  critic  as  Hengstenberg, 
in  his  Authentie  des  Daniel  (p.  23  seq.),  admitting,  as  it  would 
seem  without  any  question,  the  antiquity  of  the  Talmudic 
arrangement,  and  striving  to  explain  the  location  of  Daniel 
among  the  Hagiography,  on  the  ground  that  the  book  was  not 
written  in  Palestine,  and  was  not  from  the  hand  of  one  who 
was  a  prophet  by  office,  or  who  could  claim  the  highest  de- 
gree of  inspiration.  Certain  it  is  from  all  the  authorities  be- 
fore Jerome  and  the  Talmud,  that  Daniel  was  never  classi- 
fied in  this  manner  by  the  more  ancient  Jews.  This  is  the 
shortest  and  best  answer  to  all  arguments  against  the  genu- 
ineness of  that  book,  on  the  ground  of  its  location.  In  fact 
this  matter  is  so  plain,  that  I  am  strongly  tempted  to  believe, 
that  in  the  disputes  between  Christians  and  the  Jews  about 
the  Mcssiali,  and  the  time  of  his  coming,  during  the  first  three 


§  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON.  291 

and  a  half  centuries,  the  Jews  felt  themselves  to  be  so  pressed 
by  the  apparent  prediction  in  Dan.  ix.  respecting  the  Seventy 
Weeks  before  his  coming,  that  they  sought  to  give  the  book 
a  lower  place  than  it  had  occupied  before,  and  thus  to  remove 
it  somewhat  from  an  association  with  the  other  prophets.  It 
was  too  late  to  exclude  it  from  the  Canon. 

Havernick,  in  his  recent  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, has  made  the  same  admission  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
Talmudic  arrangement  in  respect  to  the  Kethubim.  And  he 
has  not  only  done  this,  and  in  addition  to  it  maintained  that 
the  Talmudists  made  distictions  in  the  order  of  the  prophets, 
which  w^ere  founded  on  the  degree  of  their  inspiration  and  the 
continuance  of  it,  but  he  has  laboured  at  length  (p.  54seq.)  to 
show,  that  even  the  Scriptures  themselves  make  a  distinction — 
a  palpable  one — between  5<"ni  a  prophet,  and  ni<'-i  or  t^inaseer. 
Labour  surely  bestowed  in  vain  ;  and,  on  account  of  the  fun- 
damental error  which  it  involves,  having  a  tendency  only  to 
make  his  readers  distrustful  in  regard  to  statements  of  this 
nature  when  made  by  him.  How  easy  to  have  prevented 
such  a  mistake  as  he  has  made,  by  duly  consulting  a  Hebrew 
Concordance  I  Had  he  done  this,  he  must  have  seen  that 
j<'^nD  and  nxi  or  nj'n  are  undistinguishingly  used  to  desig- 
nate the  very  same  individuals ;  e.  g.  Samuel  is  5<'^D3  iu 
1  Sara.  3:  20.  2  Chron.  35:  18,  and  iixn  in  1  Sam,  9:  if,  18, 
19.  1  Chron.  9:22.  26:28.  29:29.  Gad  is  i<'^n3  in  1  Sam. 
22:  5.  2  Sam.  24: 11,  and  nth  in  1  Chron.  29:  29  ;  Iddo  is 
prophet  in  2  Chron.  13:  22,  and  seer  in  9:  29  ;  Jehu  is  pro- 
phet  in  1  Kings  16:  7,  12,  and  seer  in  2  Chron.  19:  2.  So 
Amos  is  called  a  rrr'n  in  Amos  7:  12,  and  the  whole  body  of 
the  prophets  collectively  appear  to  be  called  seei^s  in  2  Kings 
17:  13.  2  Chron.  33:  18.  Isa.  29:  10.  30:  10.  Mic.  3:  7.  In 
1  Sara.  9:  9  it  is  expressly  stated  that  tt'^ns  and  nxi  are 
equivalent  by  usage,  the  latter  being  the  more  ancient  word, 
and  the  former  being  then  but  recently  employed.  Both  de- 
signate the  same  class  of  persons,  although  etymologically 
considered  the  words  bear  diverse  shades  of  meaning.  &<^33 
marks  one  as  an  inspired  person  uttering  the  thoughts  which 


292  §  12.    SAMENESS  OF  THE  JEWISH  CANON. 

his  inspiration  suggests;  ntn  or  nx'i  designate  a  person 
as  seeing  things  concealed  from  others,  whether  by  being  fu- 
ture, or  because  they  are  difficult  to  find  out.  Pity  that  a 
writer  of  so  much  learning  and  vigour  as  Havernick  should 
take  such  a  false  position,  specially  when  it  was  so  easy  to 
shun  it ! 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  neither  Hengstenberg  nor  Haver- 
nick appears  to  lay  any  stress  upon  the  Rabbinic  conceit  of 
different  gradations  of  inspiration,  as  being  matter  of  fact. 
They  introduce  this  view  of  the  Talmudists,  in  order  to  ac- 
count for  the  arrangement  of  so  many  books  among  the  class 
of  Kethubim.  Yet  even  this  will  hardly  be  accomplished  by 
it ;  for  how  came  Lamentations  to  be  put  among  the  Kethu- 
bim, and  Jeremiah  among  the  Prophets  ?  What  sort  of  in- 
spiration was  that  which  was  given  to  David,  in  his  Messia- 
nic views  as  exhibited  by  the  Psalms  ?  Or  what,  in  respect 
to  devotional  feeling  and  instruction  ?  There  is  no  view  that 
we  can  take  of  this  subject,  which  does  not  show  its  futility. 
And  when  the  question  is  once  asked  :  By  what  diagnostics 
could  the  Rabbles  discern  and  decide  the  gradations  of  inspi- 
ration ?  all  the  answer  is  made  to  this  whole  matter,  that 
needs  to  be  made,  or  which  it  deserves.  It  is  like  a  thousand 
thousand  other  conceits  with  which  the  Talmudic  writers 
abound,  and  which  even  the  later  Jewish  writers  virtually  ac- 
knowledge, by  calling  them  Haggadoth,  i.  e.  tales  or  stories, 
meaning  pleasant  or  entertaining  stories. 

"With  good  reason  then  do  we  take  the  position,  that  the 
son  of  Sirach,  P?iilo,  the  New  Testament,  Josephits,  and  all 
the  earlier  Christian  writers,  doivn  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  testify  in  favour  of  an  arrangement  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  which  classes  FOUR  BOOKS  together  that  are  of  like 
composition  and  matter  in  some  important  respects,  and  regards 
ONLY  THESE  as  belonging  to  the  Hagiography.  All  that  dif- 
fers from  this  is  later,  and  is  the  invention  of  those  who  have 
sought  for  or  made  distinctions  that  are  only  imaginary,  and 
6hown  more  of  the  ingenuity  of  romancers  than  of  the  sound 
judgment  and  discretion  of  sober  critics. 


§  13.    GENERAL  RESULTS.  293 


§  13.    General  Results  of  preceding  Investigations. 

There  are  some  results,  which  are  so  plain  and  lie  as  it 
were  so  much  on  the  very  surface  of  what  has  been  exhibited, 
that  they  cannot  well  escape  the  notice  of  the  reader,  even 
such  a  reader  as  may  be  unskilled  in  criticism.  These  are, 
that  the  books,  which  for  ages  past  have  belonged  to  the  He- 
brew Canon,  and  which  now  belong  to  it,  are  the  very  same 
books  which  belonged  to  it  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles, and  for  several  centuries  before  this  period.  There  are 
some  particulars  in  the  history  of  them  which  has  now  been 
traced,  that  place  this  position  beyond  all  reasonable  contra- 
diction. The  Son  of  Sirach  refers  to  them,  at  least  180 
years  (perhaps  280)  before  the  Christian  era,  precisely  in 
the  same  manner,  and  by  substantially  the  same  names  or 
designations,  as  does  Philo  (ii.  40  B.  C),  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  Josephus.  The  manner  of  the  refer- 
ence implies  of  necessity  a  defined  and  well  known  collection 
of  books,  intelligible  to  every  educated  reader,  and  no  more 
liable  to  be  mistaken,  than  our  word  Scripture  or  Bible  now 
is  among  us.  The  Christian  Fathers  who  follow,  down  to 
the  fifth  century,  have  made  the  limits  of  the  Jewish  Canon 
entirely  definite  by  specifying,  in  different  countries  and  by 
many  distinguished  persons,  the  identical  books  which  belong 
to  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  No  room  is  left  for  mistake  on 
this  important  point.     Such  is  the  state  of  facts. 

In  the  next  place,  we  argue  that  such  must  necessarily  have 
been  the  case,  from  the  circumstances  of  the  Jews,  their  views 
and  feelings  in  relation  to  religious  matters,  and  the  opposing 
party-divisions  which  existed,  first  among  themselves,  and 
then  between  the  Jews  and  Christians.  To  begin  with  the 
Jews ;  it  is  certain  from  the  repeated  testimony  of  Josephus, 
and  indirectly  of  Philo,  that  the  Sect  of  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees  existed  long  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  Saviour 
and  his  disciples  found  these  sects  in  full  vigour,  and  in  strong 
action,  at  the  time  of  their  ministry.     When  we  go  further 

25* 


294  §  13.    GENERAL  RESULTS. 

back,  we  find  ourselves  unable  to  trace  tlieir  history  to  Its 
origin.  Josephus  first  mentions  them  in  Antiq.  XIII.  5.  9, 
under  the  high-priest  Jonathan  (159 — 144  B.  C.)  ;  but  he 
mentions  them  (together  with  the  Essenes)  as  sects  already 
fully  and  definitely  formed.  Winer  thinks,  and  with  good 
reason,  that  the  spirit  of  Judaism,  soon  after  the  return  of 
the  Jews  from  their  Babylonish  exile,  gave  rise  to  a  feeling 
which  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Pharisaic  party  ;  and  that 
this  very  naturally  called  forth  an  opposition,  which  embodi- 
ed itself  in  the  Sadducaean  party  ;  art.  Pharisaer,  in  Bib.  Lex. 
In  the  time  of  John  Hyrcanus,  nephew  of  Judas  Maccabaeus, 
Josephus  speaks  of  the  Pharisees  as  having  such  influence 
with  the  common  people,  that  "  they  would  be  believed  even 
in  case  they  uttered  anything  against  the  king  or  high-priest." 
To  them  was  opposed  the  Sadducees  ;  and  the  main  sub- 
ject of  division  between  them,  was  not  the  denial  of  angel  or 
spirit,  or  the  Sadducaean  rejection  of  the  Pharisaic  doctrine 
of  predestination,  (as  has  been  often  alleged),  but  the  cardo 
ret  was  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. In  opposition  to  the  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees  rejected 
all  traditions  and  ordinances  of  men,  not  expressly  sanction- 
ed by  the  Scriptures.  So  Josephus  most  explicitly  :  "  Their 
custom  was,  to  regard  nothing  except  the  Laws  [i.  e.  the 
written  Laws=the  Bible] ;  for  they  reckon  it  as  a  virtue  to 
dispute  against  the  doctors  in  favour  of  the  wisdom  (oocpia^) 
which  they  follow ;"  Antiq.  XVIII.  1.  4.  Again  in  Antiq. 
XIII.  10.  6  he  says  :  "  The  Pharisees  inculcated  many  rules 
upon  the  people,  received  from  the  fathers,  which  are  not 
written  in  the  Law  of  Moses  ;  and  on  this  account  the  sect  of 
the  Sadducees  reject  them,  alleging  that  those  things  are  to  be 
regarded  as  rules  which  are  written  [in  the  Scriptures],"  but 
that  the  traditions  of  the  fathers  are  not  to  be  observed.  In 
a  word  ;  the  Sadducees  of  old  were  Scripturists  ;  and  in  re- 
ipect  to  this  point  they  occupied  the  same  ground  in  opposition 
to  the  Pharisees,  which  Protestants  now  occupy  in  relation  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  traditions.  That  sect  has  long  been  de- 
funct among  the  Jews ;  but  it  has  notoriously  been  succeeded 


§  13.    GENERAL  RESULTS.  295 

by  the  so  called  Karaites  ("piSi'^p,  Scripturists);  see  Triglan- 
dius,  Syntagma  de  Sectis  Judeorum,  etc.  The  idea  that  has 
been  broached  and  defended  by  some,  that  the  Sadducees  ad- 
mitted the  authority  of  only  the  Pentateuch,  is  entirely  with- 
out foundation.  How  could  they  have  been,  as  they  often 
were,  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  high  priests,  and  no 
objection  of  this  nature  have  been  brought  against  them  by 
the  Pharisees  ?  That  their  speculations  led  them  to  reject 
the  existence  of  angels  and  unembodied  spirits,  is  true  in- 
deed ;  but,  as  I  have  already  said,  the  cardo  rei,  in  respect  to 
the  dispute  between  them  and  the  Pharisees,  was  what  has 
just  been  stated  ;  see  Winer,  Bib.  Lex.  art.  Sadducaer,  who 
has  taken  considerable  pains  in  the  investigation  of  these  mat- 
ters. 

Back  then  to  a  time  which  preceded  the  Maccabees,  at  all 
adventures,  we  must  put  the  rise  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees. From  the  moment  that  the  parties  were  fully  form- 
ed, the  extent  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  was  of  course  a  matter 
fully  and  permanently  decided.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose, 
that  the  Sadducees  would  concede  to  their  antagonists  the 
right  or  the  power  to  introduce  new  books  into  the  Canon. 
This  would  be  giving  up  the  very  essence  of  the  matter  in 
dispute.  No  one  but  a  prophet  divinely  commissioned,  and 
so  endowed  as  to  be  acknowledged  by  both  parties,  would  or 
could  be  entrusted  with  the  introduction  of  a  new  sacred  book. 
But  no  such  prophet,  as  is  conceded  by  all,  made  his  appear- 
ance at  that  time.  Of  course  we  cannot  listen  to  the  affirma- 
tions of  Neologists,  however  confident  and  often  repeated, 
that  Daniel,  Chronicles,  Jonah,  many  of  the  Psalms,  and 
what  not,  first  made  their  appearance  at  the  Maccabaean  peri- 
od. It  was  impossible  to  procure  admittance  for  them  to  the 
Canon,  if  such  were  the  case.  The  very  essence  of  the  dis- 
pute between  the  two  great  parties  among  the  Jews,  turning 
as  it  did  on  the  specific  point  of  adherence  to  the  Scriptures 
only,  must  of  course  have  rendered  it  impossible  for  either 
parly  newly  to  introduce  a  sacred  book,  which  would  be  ac- 
knowledged by  the  other.     Yet  we  have  not  a  whisper  in  all 


296  §  13.    GENERAL  RESULTS. 

antiquity,  that  tells  us  of  any  dispute  in  relation  to  the  rejec- 
tion of  any  book  now  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  or  of  any  doubt 
about  its  authenticity  by  either  party.  Even  the  Pharisees 
never  attempted  to  add  their  traditions  to  the  Scriptures,  in 
the  way  of  incorporating  them  together.  They  produced 
them  at  first  as  oi'ol  law,  brought  down  merely  by  oral  tradi- 
tion. They  formed,  at  last,  their  Mishna,  and  their  Talmud, 
in  order  to  embody  them  and  make  them  permanent ;  but  in 
all  this  they  meddled  not  with  the  integrity  of  the  Scriptures. 
In  forbidding  the  young  to  read  Canticles  and  the  first  and 
last  part  of  Ezekiel,  they  did  not  pretend  to  undervalue  these 
books,  but  merely  manifested  their  opinion  that  they  were 
not  adapted,  by  reason  of  their  peculiar  style  and  matter,  to 
the  capacity,  comprehension,  and  profit  of  youthful  readers. 

We  may  in  a  moment  realise  the  validity  of  the  argument 
under  consideration,  by  asking  the  question :  Whether  any 
one  of  the  sects  of  Christians,  at  present,  could  introduce 
another  book  into  the  New  Testament,  which  would  be  ac- 
knowledged by  all  ?  Has  it  yet  ever  been  possible  to  make 
Protestants  receive  Judith  and  Tobit,  and  the  Apocrypha  in 
general,  since  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  ?  The  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  did  their  best  to  effect  this ;  and  in  what  has  it 
resulted  ? 

We  have  seen  how  matters  stood  before  the  Christian  era ; 
let  us  now  inquire  into  the  state  of  them  since  the  commence- 
ment of  that  era.  Two  parties  existed  among  the  Jews. 
Many  of  the  Jews  became  Christians,  and  were  not  only  op- 
posed and  controverted  by  the  others,  but  persecuted  even  to 
death.  The  Scriptures  were  in  the  hands  of  both.  Which 
party  could  add  to  or  diminish  from  them,  and  yet  persuade 
the  other  to  accede  ?  Surely  neither.  When  the  Alexan- 
drine Christians,  (whether  Jewish  or  Gentile  Christians  we 
cannot  perhaps  decide  with  certainty),  after  the  lapse  of  some 
time,  introduced  slowly  and  gradually  the  Apocryphal  books 
into  their  churches,  did  the  Jews  ever  receive  or  admit  them 
as  Scripture  ?  Not  in  the  least.  Melito,  Origen,  and  others 
tell  us  specifically  what  the  Jewish  Canon  was,  at  an  early  pe- 


§  13.    GENERAL  RESULTS.  297 

riod  ;  Hilary,  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Rufinus,  the  Talmud,  tell 
us  what  it  continued  to  be  at  a  later  period.  No  one  will  even 
pretend  to  say  that  it  has  been  changed  since.  Jews  and 
Christians  have  always  been  too  sharply  opposed  to  admit 
of  any  change  in  the  Scriptural  documents,  since  the  fifth 
century.  It  w^ould  be  useless  to  attempt  any  proof  of  a  mat- 
ter so  obvious,  certain,  and  acknowledged  by  all.  Whatever 
a  part  or  a  party  of  Christians  have  done,  in  the  way  of  foist- 
ing in  the  Apocrypha,  has  never  produced  the  least  influence 
upon  the  Jews,  nor  upon  the  limits  of  their  Canon.  The 
books  which  we  now  have  as  theirs,  and  which  are  appealed 
to  and  quoted  in  the  New  Testament,  still  remain  as  docu- 
ments which  are  quoted  and  referred  to  by  Christians,  and  by 
all  the  Jews  the  world  over.  If  there  ever  was  a  people  oa 
the  face  of  the  earth,  whose  superstitions  even,  to  mention, 
nothing  better,  would  have  put  it  out  of  all  question  either  to 
add  to,  or  take  from,  their  sacred  books,  that  people  was  the 
Jews.  With  what  unbending  obstinacy  have  they  adhered, 
for  more  than  a  thousand  years,  even  to  all  the  conceits  and 
egregious  trifling  of  much,  that  ia  in  the  Talmud!  Have  they 
been  less  superstitious  in  regard  to  their  Scriptures  ? 

Whatever  may  be  the  difficulties  existing  in  the  minds  of 
some,  and  even  of  some  conscientious  persons,  about  a  part 
of  the  Old  Testament  books,  they  have  no  bearing  on  the 
historico-critical  question  before  us.  Our  inquiry  respects  a 
matter  of  fact^  not  of  doctrine.  And  this  fact  stands  before 
us,  not  in  the  obscurity  of  night,  nor  in  the  doubtful  glimmer- 
ings of  twilight,  but  in  the  full  blaze  of  a  noon-day  sun. 

The  question  how  much  authority  is  to  be  attributed  to 
the  Old  Testament,  or  to  any  part  of  it,  has  not  yet  been  dis- 
tinctly considered.  It  remains  for  more  particular  discussion  ; 
and  to  this  we  shall  proceed,  as  soon  as  one  more  inquiry  has 
been  made.     This  is  : 


298  §  14   CANON  OF  EGYPTIAN  JEWS. 


§  14.  Did  the  Egyptian  Jews  admit  the  same  Canon  as 
the  Jews  of  Palestine  ? 

In  order  rightly  to  appreciate  the  importance  of  this  ques- 
tion, it  will  be  necessary  to  glance  at  the  condition  and  the 
number  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  at  the  period  of  about  320 
B.  C,  and  thence  downwards  to  the  Christian  era. 

To  Ptolemy  Lagus,  one  of  the  military  officers  of  Alexan- 
der the  Great,  was  assigned,  after  the  death  of  that  king,  the 
government  of  Egypt.  In  the  contests  which  followed,  among 
the  ethnarchs  of  Alexander's  empire,  Ptolemy  overran  and 
took  possession  of  Judea,  Samaria,  Phenicia,  and  Coelo-syria. 
Josephus  relates  that  Ptolemy  came  in  person  to  Jerusalem, 
and  offered  sacrifices  in  the  temple  there.  In  order  to  secure 
the  tranquillity  of  the  newly  conquered  countries,  he  took 
with  him  a  great  number  of  hostages  to  Egypt,  and  among 
these  were  many  thousand  Jews.  Some  of  the  latter  were 
sent  to  Cyrene,  (then  under  Ptolemy),  but  the  body  of  them 
settled  in  the  newly  built  city  of  Alexandiia. 

From  time  to  time,  after  this,  great  accessions  were  made 
to  their  numbers  ;  for  they  were  treated  with  special  favour 
by  most  of  the  Egyptian  kings,  in  order  to  secure  their  fide- 
lity and  their  aid.  Finally,  about  153  B.  C,  Onias,  a  son 
of  the  high  priest  Onias  III.  who  was  massacred  at  Daphnae 
under  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  fled  to  Egypt ;  and 
not  long  after  this,  he  so  gained  the  favour  of  Ptolemy  Phi- 
lometer,  then  king  of  that  country,  that  he  was  made  com- 
mander in  chief  of  the  Egyptian  army,  and  governor  of  the 
Nome  of  Heliopolis  ;  while  the  second  in  command  was  Do- 
sitheus,  another  Jew.  Onias,  on  account  of  the  great  num- 
ber of  Jews  in  Egypt  and  its  dependencies,  conceived  the 
idea  of  having  a  temple  built  in  that  country,  in  order  to  ac- 
commodate Hebrew  worshippers,  and  save  the  expense  and 
trouble  of  journeying  to  Palestine,  in  order  to  pay  their  devo- 
tions there.  The  king  consented,  and  a  temple  was  built  at 
Leontopolis,  in  the  Nome  of  HeliopoHs,  in  which  Onias  be- 


§  14.    CANON  OF  EGYPTIAN  JEWS.  299 

came  high  priest,  and  subordinate  priests  and  Levites  were 
gathered  around  him.  The  temple  itself  was  built  after  the 
model  of  that  at  Jerusalem ;  and  the  whole  routine  of  worship 
in  it  was  simply  copied  from  that  at  Jerusalem.  This  state 
of  things  continued,  until  the  temple  of  Leontopolis  was  de- 
stroyed by  Vespasian,  during  his  war  with  the  Jews. 

Now  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  from  any  quarter,  that 
either  any  new  books  or  new  ritual  of  worship  were  ever  in- 
troduced here.  The  whole  arrangement  bespeaks  the  con- 
trary. Even  so  late  as  the  time  of  Philo  Judaeus  (40  B.  C), 
the  attachment  to  the  religion  of  the  father-land  was  not  di- 
minished among  the  Jews  of  Egypt.  They  sent  Philo  to  Je- 
rusalem, there  to  make  offerings  in  the  name  of  the  people, 
i.  e.  of  the  Egyptian  Jews.  Philo  himself  was  descended 
from  a  family  of  the  priesthood.  He  was  a  Pharisee,  and 
zealous  for  the  religion  of  his  fathers.  Yet  in  all  his  volumi- 
nous works,  he  never  once  refers  to  any  of  the  apocryphal 
books  as  Scripture,  nor  ever  makes  them  the  basis  of  any  of 
his  allegorizing ;  and  all  this,  when  at  the  same  time  it  is 
manifest  from  numerous  hints,  and  occasionally  from  his  dic- 
tion, that  he  was  familiarly  acquainted  with  the  apocryphal 
writings.  Of  this  indeed  there  can  be  no  doubt,  considering 
his  station  and  his  literary  ardour.  How  is  it  possible,  that 
neither  he,  nor  Josephus,  ever  intimates  a  word  of  any  dif- 
ference of  views  about  the  Jewish  Scriptures  between  the 
Jews  of  Palestine  and  Alexandria,  if  any  such  difference  re- 
ally existed  ?  The  fact  that  Philo  has  quoted  most  of  the 
Jewish  books  as  authoritative  and  divine,  is  a  pledge  that  he 
recognized  the  Jewish  Scriptures  in  their  usual  extent.  The 
fact  that  Josephus  never  intimates  any  departure  from  Jew- 
ish views  on  the  part  of  Egyptian  Jews,  proves,  beyond  any 
fair  contradiction,  that  he  was  not  aware  of  any  such  depar- 
ture. After  the  minute  account  he  gives  of  the  Pharisees, 
the  Sadducees,  and  the  Essenes,  should  we  not  of  course  ex- 
pect him,  when  he  describes  the  building  of  the  temple  at  Le- 
ontopolis and  its  ritual,  to  take  notice  of  any  peculiarities  in 
the  views  of  his  Egyptian  brethren  in  regard  to  the  Scrip- 
tures ? 


300  §  15.   ESTIMATION  OF  SCRIPTCRES. 

It  seems  probable,  indeed,  that  most  of  the  books  which  we 
now  name  Apocrypha,  first  came  into  being,  or  at  least  into 
circulation,  in  Egypt.  Alexandria  was,  for  a  long  period, 
the  great  literary  workshop  of  the  times.  Such  of  them  as 
were  written  before  the  Christian  era,  (which  seems  to  have 
been  the  case  with  most),  must  of  course  have  been  written 
by  Jews.  But  they  were  nearly  all  written  in  Greek  ;  and 
no  Jew  ever  thought  of  uniting  a  Greek  book  with  the  He- 
brew ones.  Hence,  although  some  of  the  apocryphal  books 
made  their  way  to  an  association  with  the  Septuagint  version, 
yet  they  were  never  joined  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Even 
the  production  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  who  was  a  Jew  of 
Jerusalem  and  wrote  in  Hebrew,  made  no  claim,  at  least  none 
which  was  admitted,  to  scriptural  authority.  Much  less  could 
the  books  written  originally  in  Greek  prefer  such  a  claim. 
Vulgar  and  uneducated  readers,  who  had  no  discriminating 
taste  or  judgment,  and  who  knew  only  the  Greek  Scriptures, 
might  unwittingly  unite  the  apocryphal  books  with  them,  be- 
cause of  their  religious  tone.  Yet  it  would  be  difficult  to 
prove  that  this  was  done,  before  the  Christian  era.  At  all 
events,  such  men  as  Philo,  although  he  quotes  only  the  Greek 
Scriptures,  never  once  thought  of  doing  any  such  thing. 

We  may  safely  come  to  the  conclusion,  then,  that  the  Ca- 
non of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  was  the  same  among  the  Jews 
both  of  Egypt  and  Palestine.     Our  next  step  is  the  inquiry  : 

§  15.  i/i  what  estimation  were  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  held  by 
the  Jews,  at,  before,  and  soon  after  the  commencement  of 
the  Christian  era  ? 

We  begin  with  the  testimony  of  the  Son  of  Sirach.  In  the 
proem  to  the  Greek  version  of  his  book,  his  grandson  has  told 
us  respecting  him,  that  "  he  gave  himself  im  ttXeiov,  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  time,  or  very  much,  to  the  study  of  the  Law, 
the  Prophets,  and  the  other  patrical  Books,"  in  order  to  pre- 
pare for  writing  his  own  book.  At  the  outset  the  translator 
speaks  of  the  "  noXlmv  nal  fAsydXcop,  many   and  important 


§  15.    SIRACHIDES.  301 

things  which  were  imparted  to  the  Jews  by  the  Law,  the  Pro- 
phets, and  the  other  Books  of  like  tenor."  The  estimation 
put  upon  the  Scriptures,  by  Sirachides  and  his  grandson,  is 
very  plainly  disclosed  by  these  declarations.  The  Bible,  for 
the  first,  was  the  highest  source  of  all  true  wisdom  and  know- 
ledge ;  in  the  view  of  the  second,  it  was  the  efficient  cause  of 
procuring  the  distinguished  blessings  and  privileges  enjoyed 
by  the  Hebrews. 

Everywhere  does  Sirachides  refer  to  the  Scriptures,  either 
by  borrowing  their  phraseology,   or   by  appealing  to    themy 
mostly  in  an  indirect  way,  as  the  source  of  all   true  wisdom, 
virtue,  piety,  and  happiness.     The  law  is  often  the  subject  of 
reference,  and  is  regarded  as  an  authority  in  all  matters.     In 
the  eulogy  of  Wisdom  (ch.  xxiv.),  there  is  a  manifest   and 
designed  imitation  of  Prov.  viii.     In  the  Tiar^Qcav  vfivot;,  i.  e. 
Eulogy  of  the  Fathers  (xliv — 1),  there  is  everywhere  the  most 
plain  and  manifest  recognition  of  the   authority,  credibility, 
and  excellence  of  the  scriptural  representations.     The  writer 
begins  with  Enoch,  and  follows  the  train  of  biblical  histo- 
ry,  down  to  Nehemiah.     He  quotes  the  promises  to  Abra- 
ham.    Moses  was  beloved  of  God,  and  to  him  commandment 
was  given  in  respect  to  his  people.     Joshua  was  a  follower 
of  Moses  in  the  prophetic  office.     Most  of  the  kings  of  Judah 
sinned  by  forsaking  the  Law.     Jeremiah  was  consecrated, 
while  in  his  mother's  womb,  to  the  prophetic  office.     Ezekiel 
saw  visions  of  glory,  which  were  shown  to  him  by  him  who 
rode  upon  the  Cherubim.     All  the  offerings  and  rites  of  the 
Levitical  ritual  are  excellent  and  deserving  of  veneration  ; 
strong  attachment  to  them,  and  particularity  in  the  observ- 
ance of  them,  is  worthy  of  high  commendation.     This  and 
the  like  matter  in   the  book   of   Sirachides  show  beyond  the 
possibility  of  doubt,  that  with  him  the  sacred  books  were  to 
ndvv,  the  all  in  aU.     Philo  and  Josephus  have  designated 
their  views  much  oftener  by  the  use  of  significant  attributives 
applied  to  the  Scriptures,  (as  we  shall  soon   see)  ;  but  they 
have  shown  no  deeper  reverence  for  the  authority  and  excel- 

26 


302  §  15.    ESTIMATION  OP  SCRIPTURE. 

lence  of  the  Scriptures,  than  the  Son  of  Sirach.  "  He  that 
runneth,  may  read"  this,  in  every  part  of  his  work. 

We  come  next  to  Philo.  He  has  been  more  explicit  in 
stating  his  view  of  the  matters  under  consideration.  Nothing 
can  be  more  certain  than  his  beHef  in  the  divine  inspiration 
and  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  in  the  very  highest  sense  that 
can  be  affixed  to  these  words.  The  edition  to  which  I  refer 
in  the  view  subjoined,  is  that  of  Mangey,  2  vol.  fol. 

I.  Philo' s  view  of  the  prophetic  office  and  of  inspiration. 
In  0pp.  I.  p.  222,  speaking  of  Moses  as  a  prophet,  he  sub- 
joins :  "  'Enur^rei';  ydo  doiv  oi  TZQorpjjTai  #iov,  y.aia/ocoiitrot 
toi's  ly.tiV(x)v  oQyc'tvoi'^  ttqos  d/iXcjGiv  Mv  dp  id'/jXyjae,  i.  e.  Pro- 
phets are  the  interpreters  of  God,  he  employing  their  organs  for 
the  disclosure  of  whatever  he  pleases."  In  his  De  Legibus 
Special.,  II.  p.  343,  he  comes  out  most  fully  and  explicitly 
with  his  views:  "  77()ogp>^r/j?  df  n^v  yitQ  ovd^v  tdiov  aTiocfai- 
VEtai  TO  TraQUTzav,  dXX'  'iariv  sQfJiijvevg,  vnTzo^dXlovTog  sitQOV 
Tiavd^  o<5u  TiQOffiQtii  ^a)  'Aad^  ov  )[q6vov  Ivdovain  ysyovoog  iv 
dp'Oia,  f^(£ravi6Tafitvov  ^itv  tov  ).oyi()[^ov  y.ai  TTaQWAFyronrixoTog 
-rijv  riig  il'v/TJg  dxQonoXtv  •  Enmtq^oiTri'AOTog  ds  yai  eroiyjjy.o- 
•rog  TOV  x^eiov  TtvevfiaTog,  yat  ndoav  Trig  qiavrjg  oQyavoTToitav 
nQovovrog,  d^  yat  h'tjyovvTog  aig  ivaoyij  drjlcoGiv  (ov  71Q06x^£- 
GTTiTei,  i.  e.  a  prophet  exhibits  nothing  at  all  which  is  his  own, 
but  is  an  interpreter,  another  suggesting  whatever  he  utters  ; 
and  so  long  as  he  is  inspired,  he  remains  unconscious,  his 
reason  departing  and  quitting  the  citadel  of  the  soul,  and  the 
divine  Spirit  entering  and  inhabiting  it,  and  giving  impulse  to 
all  the  organism  of  the  voice,  and  uttering  sounds  for  the  clear 
discourse  of  those  things  which  he  prophesies."  Here,  then, 
is  a  representation  that  will  satisfy  even  the  warmest  stickler 
for  passivity  in  persons  inspired.  I  regret  to  add,  that  down 
to  the  present  hour  there  have  been  and  are  not  a  few,  who 
have  laboured  to  support  the  like  extreme  view  of  this  matter. 
Even  Hengstenberg  tells  us,  that  "  when  the  Spirit  of  God 
comes  in,  the  spirit  of  man  goes  out ;"  the  mere  echo  of  what 
Philo  said  more  than  1800  years  ago.  It  is  not  my  present  busi- 
ness to  examine  theologically  this  view  of  inspiration.     How 


§  15.  PHiLO.  303 

the  weight  or  authority  of  what  is  communicated,  is  aug- 
mented by  the  supposition  that  the  organ  of  communicatiou 
ceases  to  be  a  rational  and  conscious  being,  is  wliat  no  one 
has  yet  shown.  At  all  events  Paul  did  not  believe  in  such  a 
^iewof  this  matter,  when  he  declared,  (for  the  purpose  of  en- 
forcing obedience  to  his  injunctions  among  the  Corinthian 
prophets,  and  of  showing  their  obligation  and  ability  to  obey), 
that  "  the  spirit  of  the  prophets  is  subject  to  the  prophets." 
To  Philo  such  a  suggestion,  it  seems,  would  have  appeared 
little  less  than  blasphemy.  My  view  of  it  is  indeed  very  dif- 
ferent. It  appears  to  me  to  be  simple  Christian  rationality 
^nd  truth.     But  enough  of  this. 

No  one  will  deny,  then,  that  whatever  books  Philo  con- 
sidered as  Scripture,  or  as  revealed,  they,  in  his  view,  bore 
the  stamp  of  the  highest  possible  authority  and  credibility. 
He  often  repeats  this  sentiment.  In  his  Quis  Rer.  divin.  Hae- 
res  sit,  (0pp.  I.  510),  he  says  :  "  A  prophet  utters  nothing  of 
his  own,  but  all  things  are  from  a  foreign  source,  another  giv- 
ing them  utterance."  And  again  in  II.  p.  417  :  "A  prophet 
is  an  interpreter,  uttering  from  within  the  things  that  are 
spoken  by  God."  Whoever  then  is  caWed  a  p7-ophet  by  him,  is  of 
course  regarded  as  an  iustrumentof  divine  and  authoritative 
communication.  Whatever  books  were  ranked  by  him  as  Scrip- 
ture, were  also  of  course,  in  his  view,  entitled  to  all  the  au- 
thority and  reverence  which  such  a  character  of  their  authors 
could  claim.  It  remains  for  us  to  see  how  he  characterizes, 
in  particular,  both  the  sacred  writers  and  their  books. 

II.  Phild's  particular  view  of  sacred  authors,  and  of  their 
looks.  The  most  general  designation  of  the  authors  is  prophets, 
jzQO(ftJTui.  With  this  word,  and  for  the  sake  of  variety  in  his 
diction,  he  not  unfrequently  exchanges  other  names,  which, 
as  he  employs  them,  are  altogether  equivalent.  For  example, 
we  find  frequently  in  him,  7iQoq)^zt]g  dri'jQ,  projjhetic  man, 
itQoqidvTiji;,  hierophant,  i.  e.  exhibitor  of  sacred  things,  \>fc(7:;ri'- 
aiog  dvrjQ,  oracular  man,  Moivotcog  iTaiQog,  disciple  or  com- 
panion  of  Moses,  M(avat(og  d^iaoojTt]g,  a  follower  of  3foses, 
(lit.  a  thiasos  associate),  xig  xcav  (poiT^TMv  M(oaecog,  one  of  the 


304  §  15.    ESTIMATION  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

followers  or  frequenters  of  Moses,  rev  TTQoqjjjrixov  'Oia6(ori]g 
XOQOv,  a  companion  of  the  prophetic  choir  ;  all  of  which  names 
are  applied  to  various  sacred  writers,  and  which  an  artificial 
eloquence  led  Philo  thus  to  vary,  while  his  meaning  is  ever 
the  same.  Moses  is  referred  to  in  some  of  the  cases  above, 
as  the  perfection  of  the  prophetic  character,  the  ideal  o^  an  in- 
spired person. 

The  books  written  by  such  men  he  calls  leQag  yQaq)dg,  sa- 
cred Scriptures,  leQug  ^i^lovg,  sacred  books,  (tQOJTazov  yodf^ixa 
most  holy  writing,  lizoocfarT^d^bvza,  sacred  disclosures,  Tigocpt]- 
Tixov  X6yor,2Jrophetic  word,  TiQocp^tvAii  Qijuata,  prophetic  say- 
ings, sometimes  Xoyiov  oracle,  loyiov  rov  d^eov,  oracle  of  God, 
and  sometimes  ^Qr^a^iov  oracular  response,  or  to  ynriGy^tv,  what 
is  uttered  oracularly.  Like  the  preceding  designations  of 
prophets,  all  these,  as  employed  by  him,  are  entirely  synony- 
mous, and  the  variety  belongs  merely  to  his  rhetoric. 

Any  of  these  names  bestoM^ed  on  writers,  or  on  their  books, 
indicate,  of  course,  the  fullest  belief  on  the  part  of  Philo,  that 
they  were  divinely  inspired,  and  therefore  of  paramount  au- 
thority. Our  next  object  then  will  be,  to  inquire  in  what 
manner  he  has  bestowed  these  appellations. 

III.  Boohs  and  persons  designated  by  Philo  as  inspired. 
Moses  he  almost  everywhere  names  nnocfljTijg,  prophet  or 
isQOCpdvT)]g,  hierophant.  His  inspiration  is  of  the  highest 
stamp  ;  his  books  are  the  prophetic  word  or  sacred  books. 
Genesis  he  calls  kQitg  jQciq)dg,  sacred  Scriptures,  (De  Mundi 
Opif.  I.  p.  18)  ;  Exodus  is  lnqd  ^l^log,  sacred  booh,  (De  Mi- 
grat.  Abrah.  I.  p.  438)  ;  Leviticus  is  lEQog  Xoyog,  sacred  word^ 
(Allegor.  III.  Tom.  I.  p.  85)  ;  Numbers  he  calls  leQcoTaTov 
yQdf.(^ia,  most  sacred  writing,  (Deus  sit  immut.  I.  273)  ;  and 
Deuteronomy  y^Q^aiJiiov  and  ihQOV  Xoyov,  oracle  and  sacred 
XDord,  (De  Migrat.  Abraham.  I.  454,  and  De  Somn.  I.  657). 

Joshua  he  cites  as  loyiov  tov  iXwv  d^EOv,  the  oracle  of  the 
merciful  God,  (De  Confus.  Ling.  I.  430). 

I.  Samuel,  (which,  following  the  designation  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  he  calls  /.  Kings),  is  cited  as  ItQog  Xoyog,  (De  Temulent. 
L  379). 


§  15.  PHiLO.  305 

Ezra  is  cited  as  containing  la  iv  ^acih.y.aig  ^fp.of.g  lego- 
(jpavTtjOtvTct  things  sacredly  revealed  in  the  royal  books,  (De 
Confus.  Ling.  I.  427). 

Isaiah  he  names  tov  naXai  TTQoqj^rrjv,  the  ancient  prophet, 
(De  Somn.  I.  681).  His  prophecies  are  TZQoqjT^zixa  Q^{A.azctf 
prophetic  sayings,  (De  Mutat.  Nora.  I.  604). 

Jeremiah  he  calls  prophet,  hierophant,  and  iA.v6TTjg  one  ini- 
tiated  in  sacred  mysteries  ;  and  his  work  is  XQriaiiog  oracle, 
(De  Cherub.  I.  147,  148).  Again  he  says  of  this  prophet, 
that  he  was  zov  7ZQorpriny,ov  S^iaacorr^g  /o(?oy,  6g  HOLtanvEva' 
&Eig  ivO^ovaicov  dvecpx^sy^aio,  i.  e.  an  associate  of  the  prO' 
phetic  choir,  who  being  animated  by  the  Spirit  spake  in  ecstasy, 
(De  Confus  Ling.  1.  44).  In  another  place  he  says  :  "  The 
Father  of  the  universe  predicted  by  the  prophetic  mouth  of 
Jeremiah,  (De  Prof.  1.  575). 

In  respect  to  the  Minor  Prophets,  (always  one  book  in  an- 
cient times),  he  refers  to  two  of  them,  viz.  Hosea  and  Zecha- 
riah.  A  passage  in  Hos.  14:  8  he  names  )[Qr]ad^8v  TzaQo.  iin 
tav  Ttoocfi^Kav,  spoken  oracularly  by  one  of  the  prophets,  (De 
Plant.  Noe,  I.  350).  Again  he  calls  Hos.  14:  24  "  a  glowing 
oracle  predicted  by  a  prophetic  mouth,"  (De  Mutat.  Nom.  1. 
350).  Zechariah  he  calls  the  companion  of  Moses,  Mcjvaecog 
STaiQog,  (De  Confus.  Ling.  I.  414).  Of  course,  in  referring 
to  these  two  prophecies,  or  to  either  of  them,  he  recognizes 
the  whole  book  of  the  Twelve,  which  was  always  counted  as 
one  book,  so  far  back  as  we  can  trace  the  history  of  the  canon. 

The  Psalms  are  often  quoted  by  Philo  as  Scripture ;  and 
David,  whom  he  regarded  as  the  principal  author  of  them,  is 
called  by  him  nQOCfqi^g, prophet,  (De  Agric.  I.  308)  ;  7rQoq)tj- 
tyg  avriQ,  prophetic  man,  (Quis  Rer.  div.  Haeres,  I.  515)  ; 
'&sa7ZS(i(og  dvijQ,  oracidarman,  (De  Plant.  Noe,  1.344.  corap. 
De  Mund.  0[)p.  I.  3G2)  ;  McoiJatojg  {^laacorj^g  og  ovxi  tmv 
tj{j,tXt]fihfov  Tjv,  an  associate  of  Hoses  who  was  not  of  those  that 
are  lightly  regarded,  (De  Plant.  Noe,  p.  219  edit.  Francof.)  ; 
and  sometimes  icaiQog  Mcoatwg,  the  friend  of  Afoses,  (Quod 
a  Deo  mitt.  Somnia,  I.  691). 

In  like  manner  he  speaks  of  Solomon,  whom  the  Jews  of 

26* 


306  §  15.    ESTIMATION  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

that  day  regarded  as  the  author  of  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
Canticles.  He  says  that  he  is  ix  rov  '&eiov  '/^oqov^  of  the  di- 
vine choir ^  (De  Ebriet.  I.  362)  ;  and  he  names  him  riva  rooy 
<f)Otrr]TMv  MoJGSojg,  one  of  the  disciples  of  Moses,  (De  Cong, 
quaer.  erud.  Grat.  I.  544). 

The  book  of  Judges,  8:  9,  he  quotes  in  De  Confus.  Ling. 
I.  424.  Job  14:  4  is  quoted  in  De  Mutat.  Nom.  I.  584.  Our 
first  book  of  Kings,  (Philo  names  it  as  in  the  Sept.,  the  third), 
is  quoted  in  De  Gigant.  I.  274,  and  in  six  other  places.  The 
book  of  Psalms,  already  mentioned  as  quoted  by  him,  he 
quotes  in  all  the  five  parts  or  divisions  of  the  books,  so  as  to 
show  that  it  was  the  same  in  his  day  as  in  ours  ;  see  in  Eichh. 
Einl.  I.  p.  97,  edit.  HI. 

Quotations  are  not  found  in  him  from  Ruth,  Esther,  Chron- 
icles, Daniel,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles.  But 
the  two  latter  are  doubtless  acknowledged  by  the  reference 
to  Solomon  as  "  of  the  divine  choir."  Of  the  others  it  is 
sufficient  to  say,  that  he  did  not  find  occasion  to  quote  them. 
It  is  no  argument  against  their  existence  and  canonical  rank, 
that  they  are  not  quoted  by  him,  when  he  nowhere  under- 
takes to  give  us  a  list  of  the  Scriptures,  but  only  to  refer  to 
such  passages  in  them  as  are  to  his  purpose.  Would  any 
man  think  of  drawing  the  conclusion  in  these  days,  that  cer- 
tain books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  acknowledged  by 
this  theologian  and  that,  because  they  have  not  quoted  them 
in  their  publications  ?  Nothing  could  be  more  weak  and 
false  in  reasoning  than  this.  And  equally  so  is  it,  when  ap- 
plied to  Philo. 

After  all,  in  fact  the  books  not  quoted  by  him  are  almost 
none,  if  v»'e  reckon  the  universal  manner  of  the  ancients  in 
distributing  the  books.  E.  g.  Judges  and  Puth  were  by  them 
regarded  as  ojie  book,  and  he  quotes  Judges  ;  Jeremiah  and 
Lamentations  were  one  book,  and  he  quotes  Jeremiah ;  the 
books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  one,  and  he  quotes  Ezra. 
There  is  left  then  only  Chronicles,  Daniel,  and  Esther,  which 
he  has  not  quoted.  The  wonder  is,  not  that  so  many  remain 
unquoted,  but  that  so  many  have  been  quoted. 


§  15.  PHiLO.  307 

Moreover  as  the  grandson  of  Sirachides  had,  long  before 
Philo's  time,  repeatedly  adverted  to  the  triplex  division  of 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Other 
Books ;  and  as  Pliilo  acknowledges  the  same  division,  in 
speaking  of  the  studies  of  the  Essenes  (0pp.  11.  475)  ;  we 
may  conclude  that  he  has  virtually  referred  to  every  part  of 
Scripture,  inasmuch  as  this  triplex  division  must  have  con- 
sisted of  books  whose  number  and  order  were  well  defined 
and  well  known  at  that  time.  Philo  was  a  Pharisee,  and  of 
priestly  origin.  He  was  zealous,  also,  in  matters  pertaining 
to  the  Jewish  religion.  His  embassy  to  Palestine  shows 
this ;  and  his  works  everywhere  bear  ample  testimony  to  it. 
In  fact,  it  seems  impossible  rationally  to  doubt,  that  the  canon 
of  Philo  w^as  the  same  as  that  of  Josephus  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers,  considering  how  near  he  lived  to  the  times  in 
which  they  lived,  and  in  what  manner  he  has  described  the 
contents  of  the  Scriptures  which  he  regarded  as  divine. 

That  Philo  was,  as  has  already  been  said,  acquainted  with 
the  apocryphal  books,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Yet  he  nev- 
er QUOTES  THEM,  NOT  EVEN  FOR  THE  PURPOSES  OF  ALLE- 
GORIZING. No  imaginable  reason  can  be  given  for  this,  ex- 
cepting that,  like  Josephus,  he  made  a  distinction  wide  and 
broad  between  inspired  and  other  books.  This  account  of 
Philo's  practice  in  regard  to  the  apocryphal  books  may  be 
relied  on,  for  Hornemann  (Observatt.  ad  illustr.  Doctrinae 
de  Canone  Vet.  Test,  ex  Philone)  assures  us  of  this ;  and  he 
read  through  the  whole  works  of  Philo,  as  he  states,  in  order 
to  ascertain  this  very  point.  His  competency  and  his  can- 
dour as  a  witness  will  not  be  called  in  question.  Eichhorn 
gives  him  full  credit ;  Einl.  I.  §  26.  In  fact,  Philo  shows 
his  contempt  of  the  apocryphal  books,  (for  which  some  in  his 
day  doubtless  began  to  entertain  a  high  regard,  so  as  to  treat 
them  as  a  kind  of  Scripture),  by  treating  them  with  more 
neglect  than  he  has  even  the  heathen  productions ;  for  he 
often  quotes  Plato,  Philolaus,  Solon,  Hippocrates,  Heraclites, 
and  others,  while  he  never  does  this  honour  to  the  Apocry- 
pha. 


308  §  15.   ESTIMATION  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

Such  then  was  the  state  of  this  matter  respecting  the  Ca- 
non in  Egypt,  the  very  hot-bed  of  apocryphal  vScriptures,  at 
a  period  antecedent  to  the  Christian  era.  The  most  distin- 
guished philosopher  and  writer  of  the  Jewish  nation,  at  that 
time,  takes  no  cognizance  of  apocryphal  scriptures,  when,  if 
he  regarded  them  as  other  Alexandrians  afterwards  did,  even 
Christian  writers,  he  must  have  found  very  numerous  occa- 
sions for  quoting  them,  or  referring  to  them.  But  this  is  an 
honour  which  he  utterly  withholds. 

Next,  as  to  the  Opinion  of  Josephus.  We  have  already 
examined  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  as  to  the  number  and 
nature  of  the  sacred  books  (pp.  223 — 233  above),  and  but 
little  more  seems  necessary  to  be  here  said,  under  the  present 
category.  My  particular  object  now  is,  to  render  more  pro- 
minent the  distinction  which  he  makes  between  the  books  of 
Scripture  and  other  works. 

The  famous  passage  in  Cont.  Apion.  I.  §  8,  (see  p.  223 
above),  presents  this  distinction  to  us  in  a  very  clear  and 
commanding  hght.  After  enumerating  the  various  portions 
of  Scripture  and  reckoning  the  number  of  the  sacred  books, 
he  says :  "  From  Artaxerxes  until  the  present  time,  every 
occurrence  is  recorded ;  but  these  [narrations]  are  not  re- 
garded as  worthy  of  the  credit  due  to  those  which  preceded 
them,  because  there  was  no  certain  succession  of  prophets. 
By  our  conduct  we  show  what  credit  we  give  to  the  proper 
Scriptures ;  for  although  so  long  a  period  of  time  has  passed 
away,  no  one  has  ventured  to  add  anything  to  them,  or  to 
take  anything  from  them.  It  is  implanted  in  every  Jew, 
from  his  birth,  to  regard  them  [the  Scriptures]  as  the  statutes 
of  God,  to  abide  by  them,  and  (if  necessary)  gladly  to  die  for 
them."  See  App.  No.  III.  A  broader  and  more  palpable 
distinction  no  Protestant  pen  could  now  sketch. 

Elsewhere  he  testifies  the  same  feelings  and  views.  He 
calls  the  Scriptures  ItQctg  ^'^XovSy  sacred  books  ;  T«t,'  zmv  le- 
Qwv  yifaqicov  ^,'^).ovi;,  the  books  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  ihqo. 
yQCif^fiaziij  sacred  writings  ;  za  iv  z(p  />(jq5  uvaxeifitva  yQccfi- 
fiaza,  the  writings  laid  up  in  the  temple  ;  and  also  ^i^Xovg 


§  15.  josEPHus.  309 

7tQoq)}jt8iag.  Besides  these  appellations,  he  names  the  Scrip- 
tures dQ)[aTa  §i^Xia,  aticient  books;  ^1^.01  'E^Qaicov  and 
^1^X01  E^QuYxai,  Hebrew  books. 

If  now  there  be  any  suspicion,  (arising  from  the  fact  that  the 
books  of  Daniel  and  Esther  are  not  quoted  by  Philo),  that 
those  books  did  not  belong  to  the  Jewish  Canon  at  that  peri- 
od, it  is  entirely  dissipated  by  the  course  which  Josephus  pur- 
sues. Of  no  books  in  the  Old  Testament  has  he  given  more 
copious  extracts,  in  proportion  to  their  length,  than  he  has 
from  these.  In  all  respects  he  credits  the  accounts  which 
they  give.  And  as  he  unquestionably  assigns  these  writings 
to  a  period  antecedent  to  the  close  of  Artaxerxes'  reign,  so 
no  doubt  can  remain  that  they  were  a  part  of  what  he  recog- 
nizes as  Scripture.  The  same  is  true  of  the  book  of  Jonahy 
to  which  so  many  exceptions  have  recently  been  taken.  In 
Antiq.  IX.  10.  2,  he  gives  an  account  of  Jonah  at  length,  and 
says  that  "  he  tells  the  story  of  this  prophet  just  as  he  finds 
it  written  Iv  'E^QCiYxaig  ^I'p.ofg,  in  the  Hebrew  books ;  and 
at  the  close  he  repeats  the  declaration,  that  "  he  has  gone 
throuo^h  the  narration  as  he  found  it  in  writinsc." 

The  manner  in  which  Josephus  expresses  himself  in  regard 
to  books  before  and  after  the  close  of  Artaxerxes'  reign, 
shows  that  all  the  Hebrew  books  which  were  within  the  cir- 
cle of  his  acquaintance,  and  were  written  before  the  death  of 
Artaxerxes,  were  included  within  his  Canon.  It  is  indeed 
doubtful,  whether  any  of  the  more  ancient  Hebrew  writings, 
the  sacred  books  excepted,  were  really  extant  in  the  time  of 
Josephus.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  it  seems  evident  that  none 
of  the  more  ancient  Hebrew  books,  the  Scriptures  excepted, 
were  known  to  him. 

The  Pentateuch  he  often  speaks  of  in  the  highest  terms, 
and  bestows  upon  it  appellations  like  those  employed  by  Phi- 
lo ;  e.  g.  he  calls  it  leQug  §i^lovg,  Antiq.  I.  end  of  Pref.  III. 
5.  2.  IV.  8.  48.  IX.  2.  2.  X.  4.  2.  Another  appellation  is 
at  TMv  isQcov  yQacpMv  ^I'p^ni,  cont.  Ap.  11.  4.  Comp.  with 
these  the  various  declarations  of  a  similar  tenor  respecting  the 


310  §  15.   ESTIMATION  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

sacred  nature  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  Antiq.  I.  p.  4.  XX.  5. 
4  III.  6.  5.  IV.  8.  44.  X.  4.  2.  XVI.  6.  2. 

Of  Isaiah  Josephus  says :  "  Cyrus  read  the  book  of  the 
propkeci/ of  Isaiah,  which  he  composed  210  years  before;" 
Antiq.  XL  1.  2.  Elsewhere  he  calls  l&amh  nQocfi^rr^g,  a  pro- 
phet;  X.  2.  2.  Speaking  of  Hezekiah  he  says,  that  "he 
learned  accurately  of  the  prophet  [Isaiah]  the  things  that 
were  to  come ;  XL  13.  3. 

He  calls  Jeremiah  "a  prophet,  who  predicted  terrible 
events  which  were  to  take  place  in  respect  to  the  city ;"  X. 
5.1. 

^K  Of  Ezekiel  he  says  :  "  Not  only  did  he  [Jeremiah]  foretell 
these  things  to  the  multitude,  but  also  the  prophet  Ezekiel ;" 
X.  5.  1. 

The  book  of  Daniel  he  classes  among  the  iSQa  yQafifiaTay 
i.  e.  the  sacred  writiiigs  ;  X.  10.  4.  He  speaks  of  his  nqo- 
qjtjieiav,  prophecy/,  as  being  "  uttered  408  years  before  ;"  XII. 
7.  6.  In  X.  11.  7  he  says  :  "  All  these  things  he  [Daniel] 
left  in  writing,  God  exhibiting  them  to  him ;  so  that  those 
who  read,  observant  of  the  events,  must  needs  look  on  Daniel 
with  wonder,  on  account  of  the  honour  done  to  him  by  God." 
Besides,  Josephus  has  made  copious  extracts  from  all  the  his- 
torical parts  of  Daniel,  with  some  comments  of  his  own.  He 
makes  this  prophet  a  leading  character  among  the  men  of  the 
prophetic  order ;  see  Antiq.  X.  10  and  11. 

The  twelve  Minor  Prophets  Josephus  regards  as  one  book, 
and  places  them  by  the  side  of  Isaiah.  In  Antiq.  X.  2.  2  he 
Bays :  "  Not  only  this  prophet  [Isaiah],  but  the  other  Twelve 
as  to  number  did  the  same  thing.  Everything,  whether  good 
or  evil,  that  has  taken  place  among  us,  has  happened  accord- 
ing to  their  prediction,  nQoqiriTEiav." 

Of  Jonah  we  have  already  spoken  above.  He  places  his 
book  among  the  ^i^lovg  ' E^Qai'/,dg,  the  Hebrew  books,  IX.  10. 
1.  Nahum  is  called  TiQOcp/^Ttjg,  a  prophet,  and  the  fulfilment 
of  his  predictions  is  lauded;  IX.  11.  3.  Haggai  and  Zecha- 
riah  are  called  two  prophets,  dvo  TZQocpijtai ;  XL  4.  5. 


§  15.   JOSEPHUS.  311 

Of  Joshua,  he  says,  that  it  is  "  among  the  books  laid  up  in 
the  temple  ;"  V.  1.  17. 

The  history  of  Elijah  contained  in  the  book  of  Kings,  he 
couples  with  the  history  of  Enoch ;  and  says  that  these  histo- 
ries "  are  written  in  the  sacred  books ;"  IX.  2.  2. 

The  Psalms  he  calls  vnvovg  eig  rov  d^sov ;  Cont.  Ap.  T.  8. 
He  speaks  of  them  as  "  the  songs  of  David,"  because  David 
was  the  principal  author ;  VII.  12.  3. 

In  Antiq.  X.  5.  1,  he  speaks  of  Jeremiah  as  the  author  of 
the  Lamentations.  And  as  to  all  the  historical  books,  Josh- 
ua, Judges,  I.  II.  Samuel,  I.  II.  Kings,  I.  II.  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  he  everywhere  extracts  from 
them  at  great  length  in  his  Antiquities,  following  them  step 
by  step  in  their  narrations,  and  only  here  and  there  inter- 
mingling something  of  his  own,  occasionally,  but  rarely,  a 
wonderful  story,  and  sometimes  glosses  of  the  Hebrew  nar- 
rations. He  appeals  to  them  as  of  the  highest  and  most  un- 
doubted authority. 

Josephus'  historical  office  did  not  lead  him  to  quote  all  of 
the  ancient  Hagiography.  He  has  not  made  excerpts  from 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  or  Canticles.  But  he  speaks  of  Solo- 
mon as  having  composed  ^ipJa  o}8d3v  'accI  fisXiav,  books  of 
songs  and  chants,  and  as  having  "  written  3000  books  of  par- 
ables and  similitudes."  No  doubt  can  remain,  that  he  re- 
garded him  as  the  author  of  several  of  the  sacred  books. 

The  book  of  Job,  being  foreign  to  the  objects  of  his  history, 
is  not  at  all  mentioned  by  him.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
that  this  book  was  included  in  his  Canon.  Ezekiel  makes 
recognition  of  this  book,  14:  20.  Philo  quotes  from  the  book 
of  Job  ;  De  Mutat.  Nom.  I.  p.  584.  It  is  necessary  to  include 
it,  in  order  to  make  out  the  thirteen  books  which  Josephus 
includes  under  the  second  class,  viz.  the  Prophets.  It  is  re- 
cognized in  the  New  Testament;  James  5:  11.  It  is  reason 
enough  that  Josephus  does  not  speak  of  the  book,  that  the 
history  of  Job  is  that  of  a  foreigner,  probably  an  Arabian, 
who,  if  a  Jew  by  descent,  (as  seems  not  improbable),  has  not 
once  in  all  his  work  adverted  to  Jews  or  Judaism.     The  si- 


312  §  16.    SUMMARY  OF  TESTIMONY. 

lence  of  Josephus,  in  such  a  case,  makes  nothing  against  the 
book.  The  positive  testimony  of  Ezekiel,  Philo,  and  the 
New  Testament,  makes  the  point  altogether  clear,  that  the 
book  was  written  before  ArtaxerxCs'  time,  and  was  therefore 
regarded  as  one  of  the  sacred  books  by  Josephus,  according 
to  the  rule  which  he  lays  down  in  Cont.  Apion.  I.  8. 


§  16.  Summary  of  the  testimony  of  Sirachides,  Philo,  and 

Josephus. 

It  needs  but  a  brief  space  to  exhibit  this.  The  book  of 
Sirach  presents  to  our  view  a  then  (at  least  180  B.  C.)  well 
known  and  definite  triplex  division  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
in  which  all  the  books  deemed  sacred  were  included.  Philo 
has  presented  us  with  the  like  divisions  of  the  same  books,  in 
his  notice  of  books  which  were  studied  by  the  Essenes.  Jo- 
sephus has  also  presented  us  with  Scriptures  which  exhibit 
the  same  division,  viz.  the  Law,  the  Projjhets,  and  the  other 
Boohs. 

Sirachides  has  furnished  us  with  no  adequate  means  of  as- 
certaining what,  or  how  many,  the  sacred  books  of  each  divi- 
sion were.  Philo  has  not  told  us  of  the  number  ;  but  he  has 
referred  to  the  books  themselves  as  being  parts  of  Scripture, 
and  in  such  a  way,  that,  if  we  reckon  in  the  ancient  manner 
of  combining,  in  several  cases,  two  or  more  books  and  nam- 
ing them  as  one,  we  make  out  in  him  a  distinct  recognition 
of  all  the  books  excepting  Esther,  Daniel,  and  Chronicles. 
The  want  of  a  reference  in  him  to  these  books,  however, 
proves  nothing  against  their  canonical  credit.  The  only  case 
in  which  it  could  do  this  would  be,  where  he  should  under- 
take to  make  out  a  list  which  in  his  view  would  be  complete, 
and  still  omit  the  books  in  question.  But  this  he  has  no 
where  undertaken. 

Josephus  has  told  us  the  number  of  books  in  the  whole  col- 
lection, viz.  twenty-two.  Of  these,  five  belong,  according  to 
his  statement,  to  the  Law ;  four  to  the  Ilagiography ;  and 
the  rest  (of  course  thirteen)  to  the  Prophets.     His  description 


§  17.   NEW  TESTAMENT  TESTIMONT.  313 

of  the  Hagiography  of  necessity  limits  it  to  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Eeelesiastes,  and  Canticles,  with  which  agree  all  the  most 
ancient  lists  of  books  among  the  Christian  fathers,  down  to 
Jerome.  The  same  Josephus  has  revealed  to  us,  in  another 
way,  what  books  he  regarded  as  sacred.  The  Pentateuch, 
and  all  the  historical  books  he  quotes,  and  makes  excerpta 
from  them  at  large.  The  only  books  which  he  does  not  quote, 
are  Proverbs,  Eeelesiastes,  Canticles,  and  Job.  But  what 
he  says  of  Solomon  as  an  author,  in  Antiq.  VIII.  2.  5,  seems 
plainly  to  show,  that  he  regarded  him  as  the  author  of  the 
first  three  of  these  books  ;  for  so  he  has  been  generally  re- 
garded by  the  Jews  in  all  ages  since  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era.  Job  then  is  the  only  book  left ;  but  this  is 
vouched  for  by  Ezekiel,  by  Philo,  and  by  the  New  Testament. 
Our  Old  Test.  Canon,  then,  is  complete,  if  we  rest  the  ques- 
tion respecting  it  upon  Jeioish  testimony.  The  witnesses  be- 
fore us  can  neither  be  impeached  for  incompetence,  partiality, 
or  a  proneness  to  state  what  is  false.  What  reason  is  there, 
that  they  should  not  be  believed  ?  Their  testimony  is  disin- 
terested. They  have  no  party  ends  to  accomplish  by  it,  in 
this  case.  They  were  all  Jews  ;  and  none  could  so  well  un- 
derstand the  matter  in  question  as  Jews.  Moreover  they 
were  all  priests,  or  the  descendents  of  priestly  families.  At 
most,  only  Sirachides  can  be  excepted  from  this  ;  and  I  doubt 
seriously  whether  we  should  be  justified  in  excepting  him. 
Intelligent  priests,  one  would  naturally  suppose,  must  know 
what  books  were  deemed  sacred. 


§  17.  Nature  and  importance  of  the  testimony  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, in  respect  to  the  Old  Testament. 

We  come  now  to  the  consummation  of  our  work — to  the 
great  point  toward  which  all  else  that  has  been  examined 
converges.  Of  a  considerable  number  of  books  in  the  Old 
Testament,  we  do  not  even  know  who  the  author  was.  Re- 
specting others  no  explanatory  declaration  is  made  by  each 
particular  book  itself,  or  by  other  sacred  writers,  and  we  find 
27 


314  §  17.   NATUKE  AND  niPORTANCE 

no  special  assertion  that  their  origin  is  divine.  "Who  tells  us 
expressly,  that  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chron- 
icles, are  of  divine  authority  ?  Who  has  told  us  the  secret 
of  the  authorship  ?  In  what  light  have  any  of  the  Old 
Testament  writers  placed  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  or  Canti- 
cles ?  Or  what  do  these  books  say  respecting  themselves  ? 
It  seems,  indeed,  at  first  view,  as  if  the  authorship  of  Canti- 
cles and  Ecclesiastes  was  assigned  to  Solomon ;  yet  a  nicer 
critical  examination  shows,  that  this  conclusion  is  probably  not 
■well  grounded.  The  books  have  respect  to  him — ^he  is  the 
leading  personage  in  them — but  this  seems  to  be  all  that  we 
can  necessarily  make  out  from  the  inscriptions  and  the  tenor 
of  the  books  themselves.  And  besides  all  this,  the  three 
books  last  mentioned  seem  to  present  not  a  few  serious  diffi- 
culties, from  various  sources,  to  the  mind  of  even  a  grave  and 
impartial  inquirer.  What  then  has  given  sanction  to  them  ? 
W^hat  obliges  us  to  receive  and  admit  them  as  divine  ?  Not 
one  new  doctrine  in  morals  or  theology  is  added  to  the  gene- 
ral stock  by  them.  If  they  were  dropped  from  the  Scriptures, 
our  systems  of  divinity  and  morals  would  remain  the  same  as 
they  are  now.  Why  then  perplex  our  minds  with  these 
books,  which  present  problems  and  paradoxes,  some  of  which 
have  never  yet  been  satisfactorily  solved  ?  Why  not  leave 
them  to  the  Jews,  to  be  put  with  the  Mishna  and  the  Gemara, 
and  to  augment  the  Eabbinical  store-house  of  wonders  ?  Even 
the  New  Testament  writers,  (as  we  shall  see),  have  not  once 
adverted  to  them ;  and  if  they  did  not  pay  any  more  regard 
to  them,  why  should  we  consider  and  treat  them  as  sacred  ? 
In  this  manner  many  minds  have  thought  and  argued  ;  and 
even  some  which  are  honest  and  upright,  and  to  all  appear- 
ance earnestly  desirous  of  knowing  the  truth.  For  the  scru- 
ples of  such  men  I  must  always  have  respect.  Even  if  I 
cannot  regard  their  scruples  as  indicative  of  much  knowledge 
concerning  the  matter  that  excites  them,  still,  a  conscientious 
pursuit  of  truth,  and  a  readiness  to  receive  it  whenever  good 
sound  reasons  for  believing  it  are  proffered,  is  a  disposition  of 
mind  always  entitled  to  respect,  and  has  a  claim  to  be  treat- 
ed with  much  Christian  courtesy.     There  is  a  sentiment  of 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  TESTIMONY.  315 

Paul,  which  I  would  were  oftener  remembered  and  respect- 
ed ;  this  is,  that  we  ought  "  to  receive  him  that  is  weak  in  the 
faith,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations."  I  can  easily  suppose 
a  sincere  and  earnest  Christian,  whose  mind  has  never  been 
duly  enlightened  in  regard  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  to 
be  in  a  doubting  state  with  respect  to  some  of  the  anonymous 
Old  Testament  books,  while  he  heartily  admits  that  the  rest 
belong  to  a  divine  revelation.  So  it  was  with  Luther  in  re- 
gard to  some  books  of  the  New  Testament.  His  dispute 
with  the  Romanists  about  justification  by  faith  alone,  led  him. 
to  regard  the  Epistle  of  James  as  spurious,  yea  as  even  an 
epistola  straminea,  i.  e.  a  strawy,  epistle.  The  Apocalypse 
he  could  not  receive,  because  he  thought  there  was  "no 
Christ  in  it."  So  he  threw  these  books  into  an  apochryphal 
appendix.  Yet,  mistaken  as  he  was,  and  poorly  as  he  rea- 
soned in  this  case,  he  was  still  a  most  hearty  believer  in  the 
divine  word  of  God.  The  Scriptures  were  to  him  the  su- 
preme, the  all  sufficient,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

So,  with  minds  scantily  informed  in  respect  to  the  true  ba- 
sis of  credibility  in  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  I  can  easily 
suppose  other  good  men  may  act,  in  regard  to  some  of  the 
books  in  our  Old  Testament  Canon  ;  some  which  are  never 
expressly  quoted  in  the  New  Testament  as  Scripture,  and 
which  therefore  may  possibly  be  regarded,  by  one  class  of  in- 
quirers, as  having  never  been  duly  authenticated.  I  know  of 
some  persons  in  this  attitude  of  mind,  for  whom  I  cherish  a 
high  regard,  and  whose  piety  I  should  not  think  of  calling 
in  question.  To  them  I  would  hope  to  be  useful  in  the  pres- 
ent investigation.  I  cannot  agree  with  them  in  their  views 
respecting  the  Old  Testament ;  but  I  can  look  on  them  with 
fraternal  feelings,  and  say  in  the  most  brotherly  manner  to 
them :  Permit  me,  in  this  little  work,  dhjOevsiv  iv  dyaTDj. 

Very  different  is  the  position  of  those  who  abjure  the  Old 
Testament  en  masse  ;  who  even  cast  it  away  with  contumely, 
and  will  listen  neither  to  Moses  nor  the  Prophets.  I  must  re- 
gard this  as  substantial  unbelief.  I  apprehend  it  may  be  ^hown, 
that  what  they  do  is  virtually  to  set  aside  the  authority  and 


316  §  17.   NATURE  AND  I5IP0RTANCE 

express  declarations  of  the  Saviour  and  of  his  apostles.  There 
are  even  some,  who  would  not  consider  this  as  injidelity. 
But  while  I  am  not  fond  of  applying  harsh  and  ungrateful 
epithets  to  any  man  or  body  of  men  whatever,  I  know  not 
how  to  call  the  denying,  or  the  designed  evading,  of  the  au- 
thority or  the  decision  of  Christ  and  of  his  apostles  respecting 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  anything  less  than  unbelief. 
It  is  not  for  me  to  examine  and  characterize  the  motives, 
which  lead  to  such  an  unbelief.  In  my  opinion  they  belong 
to  the  cognizance  of  the  Supreme,  the  Searcher  of  all  hearts. 
Nor  am  I  desirous  of  finding  or  believing  grounds  of  making 
criminal  charges  against  any  one.  This  whole  province  I 
would  leave,  and  most  gladly  do  leave,  to  the  prerogative  of 
the  supreme  Judge.  So  much  of  the  guilt  of  unbelief,  where 
unbelief  in  reality  exists,  or  where  I  may  think  it  to  exist,  de- 
pends on  the  tone  and  temper  and  motives  of  the  mind  and 
heart,  and  on  the  light  and  means  of  information  respectively 
possessed  and  enjoyed  by  different  individuals,  that  I  do  not  see 
how  a  human  tribunal  can  take  any  adequate  cognizance  of 
such  a  matter,  even  if  it  possessed  a  right  of  cognizance.  For 
one,  I  do  not  claim  the  right ;  nor  do  I  concede  it  to  others. 

But  when  all  this  is  said,  and  even  conceded,  there  still 
remains  a  most  formidable  evil,  fairly  attached  to  and  charge- 
able upon  unbelief.  If  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  for  ex- 
ample, regarded  and  have  treated  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  of  divine  authority  and  obligation,  then  it  is  an  af- 
fair of  the  gravest  nature  to  decide  against  them.  Those 
who  do  not  profess  to  be  Christians,  and  who  regard  neither 
the  Old  Testament  nor  the  New  as  of  divine  authority,  act 
consistently,  to  say  the  least,  in  rejecting  the  Old  Testament 
as  a  revelation  from  God.  For  unbelief  they  too  are  account- 
able. If  they  are  in  the  right  as  to  their  views  and  opinions, 
of  course  they  will  escape  both  guilt  and  punishment.  But 
if  they  are  verily  in  the  wrong,  and  voluntarily  shut  their 
eyes  against  the  true  light  which  heaven  has  kindled  up  to  il- 
luminate our  darkened  path,  he  who  has  said  that  unbelief 
is  in  his  estimation  a  crime  of  the  darkest  hue  in  the  cata- 


OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  TESTIMONY.  317 

logue  of  our  sins,  cannot  be  expected  to  omit  a  due  cogni- 
zance of  it,  in  his  own  proper  time. 

Having  presented  this  matter  in  such  a  light,  it  becomes 
me  now  to  make  the  inquiry,  Whether  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  do  ackowledge  and  inculcate  the  authority 
and  obligation  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  ?  In  other 
words;  Whether  Christ  and  the  apostles  did  appeal  to  tlie 
Scriptures  as  of  divine  authority  and  obligation  ;  and  wheth- 
er those  Scriptures  consisted  of  the  same  books  which  are  now 
exhibited  in  our  Old  Testament  Canon  ?  The  way  will  then 
be  prepared  for  coming  to  our  final  conclusion. 

All  early  testimony,  Jewish  and  Christian,  exhibited  inde- 
pendently of  the  New  Testamient,  is  accordant  in  regard  to 
the  nature  and  number  of  the  Jewish  sacred  books.  No  one 
acquainted  in  any  tolerable  measure  with  the  subject,  will 
think  of  denying,  that  both  Jews  and  Christians,  at  and  after 
the  earliest  part  of  the  Christian  era,  fully  believed  in  the  di- 
vine authority  and  obhgation  of  those  books  which  belonged 
to  the  Jewish  Canon.  None  will  deny,  that  before  this  pe- 
riod the  same  belief  pervaded  the  Jewish  nation.  We  have 
only  to  ask  then,  at  present,  whether  the  highest  court  of  ap- 
peal sanctions  this  decision  ;  in  other  words,  whether  Christ 
and  the  apostles,  the  authors  of  our  religion,  have  sanctioned 
the  Jewish  views  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ? 

In  canvassing  the  testimony  of  Jewish  and  Christian  wit- 
nesses, we  have  found  occasion  to  look  at  the  subject  in  a 
twofold  light ;  first,  as  having  respect  to  t/ie  Scriptures  as  a 
whole  or  one  composite  body  of  writings  ;  and  secondly,  as 
having  respect  to  iiidividucd  and  particular  worhs  which  go 
to  constitute  the  mass.  The  same  method  I  shall  still  pursue, 
in  the  present  investigation. 

I  ask  the  reader  for  no  special  deference,  on  the  present 
occasion,  to  the  lists  of  books  contained  in  the  creeds  and  con- 
fessions of  Christian  churches  or  Jewish  synagogues,  in  later 
ages.  These  lists  may  indeed  be  correct.  In  the  main  I 
believe  that  they  are.  But  we  do  not  here  defer  to  them  as 
an  authority.     We  make  inquiry  after  the  substantial  grounds 

27* 


318      §  17.  NATURE  AND  IMPORTANCE  OF  N.  T.  TESTIMONY. 

or  reasons  by  which  these  lists  of  sacred  books  are  supported, 
and  their  claims  to  confidence  vindicated. 

Our  main  object,  moreover,  is  to  inquire  after  a  matter  of 
fact.  That  matter  is  :  What  did  Jesus  and  his  apostles  say 
respecting  the  Old  Testament  ?  What  constituted  the  Old 
Testament  of  their  day,  and  in  what  manner  have  they  ap- 
pealed to  it  ? 

It  is  needless  to  say,  that  the  usual  process  of  ascertaining 
facts  in  ancient  times,  must  be  resorted  to  on  this  occasion. 
We  take  nothing  for  granted,  but  what  all  reasonable  men 
feel  obliged  to  concede.  We  take  for  granted,  after  the  pre- 
ceding investigations,  that  there  were  Jewish  Scriptures  at  the 
period  in  question  ;  that  they  were  united  together  in  a  col- 
lection of  books  well  known  and  defined  ;  that  the  Jews,  one 
and  all,  (skeptics  or  heathenish  persons  excepted),  regarded 
these  books  as  of  divine  authority  in  all  matters  of  faith  and 
practice,  spoke  of  them  as  such,  appealed  to  them  as  such, 
and  remained,  and  have  continued  down  to  the  present  hour 
(with  the  exceptions  just  noted)  to  remain,  steadfast  in  the 
belief  that  such  is  the  character  of  the  books  in  question.  So 
much  will  not  be  denied. 

Did  Christ  then,  and  his  apostles,  agree  with  the  Jewish 
nation  in  regard  to  the  matter  before  us  ?  If  not,  have  they 
ever  taught  us  the  contrary  ?  Did  they  establish  a  new  He- 
brew canon  ?  Or  did  they  select  one  part  of  the  Jewish  ca- 
non, and  reject  the  rest  ?  Is  there  any  conclusion  to  be  drawn 
from  their  teaching  and  example,  as  to  the  duty  of  Christians 
in  this  matter  ? 

If  now  we  wish  to  pursue  our  inquiries,  with  regard  to 
these  points  in  a  satisfactory  way,  we  must  do  no  violence  to 
the  laws  of  exegesis.  We  must  search  after  evidence,  in  the 
same  candid  and  dispassionate  manner  which  we  would  ap- 
prove of  in  the  investigation  of  any  and  all  matters  of  fact  in 
ancient  times.  We  are  neither  to  force  our  own  views  upon 
the  N.  Test,  writers,  nor  do  any  violence  to  their  representa- 
tions in  order  to  make  them  speak  in  our  behalf,  or  in  order 
that  they  should  not  testify  against  us.     There  is  need  of  this 


§  18.    DIVERSE  APPEALS  OF  N.  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD.        319 

caution.  The  principles  by  which  it  is  justified,  have  so  often 
been  forgotten  or  violated,  that  there  is  great  need  of  our 
keeping  a  watchful  eye  upon  the  whole  process  of  investiga- 
tion.    And  now  to  the  work. 

§  18.  Appeals  of  a  general  nature,  which  are  made  to  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  New. 

I  name  all  those  general,  which  refer  to  the  hody  of  Scrip- 
ture, or  to  the  Scripture  as  a  whole  considered  in  its  collective 
capacity.  A  reference  of  such  a  nature  may  be  made  in  a 
variety  of  ways,  as  the  sequel  will  show.  I  have  only  to  re- 
mark here,  that  throughout  the  appeals  to  testimony,  the  two- 
fold object  of  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  hoohs 
of  which  it  consists,  go  hand  in  hand,  and  need  not,  and 
should  not,  be  separated  from  each  other. 

(1)  Let  us  examine  the  Scriptures,  as  arranged  by  the 
Jews  under  the  usual  triplex  division.  The  Saviour  says 
(Luke  24:  44)  to  his  doubting  disciples  :  "  All  things  must  be 
fulfilled  concerning  me,  which  are  written  in  the  Law  of  Mo- 
ses, and  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms'^  Now  here  is  a  dis- 
tinct recognition  of  the  threefold  division  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures, which  is  so  expressly  recognized  in  Sirach,  by  Philo, 
and  by  Josephus.  It  is  impossible  to  entertain  any  reasona- 
ble doubt  of  this,  considering  the  time  and  circumstances  in 
which  the  words  were  uttered.  And  as  we  have  already  as- 
certained what  books  were  included  in  this  division,  we  of 
course  must  regard  this  as  an  appeal  to  the  Jewish  Canon, 
such  as  it  now  is.  On  any  other  ground  than  a  definite  and 
well  known  collection  of  sacred  books,  the  disciples  could  not 
have  understood  their  Master,  nor  the  Master  have  spoken 
with  simplicity  and  in  good  faith. 

There  is  one  other  thing  directly  and  positively  declared 
here,  which  most  of  the  Neologists  call  in  question,  and  in 
which  Mr.  Norton  has  expressed  his  unbelief,  (see  p.  11 
above).  This  is,  that  each  of  these  divisions  or  parts  of  the 
Scripture  is  affii'med  to  contain  predictions  respecting  the  MeS' 


320        §  18.     DIVERSE  APPEALS  OF  N.  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

siah.  Those  who  call  in  question  the  existence  of  prophecy^ 
in  the  sense  o^ prediction,  and  those  who  limit  it  to  some  few 
passages  in  one,  or  at  most  in  two,  of  the  Jewish  divisions  of 
Scripture,  are  placed  by  this  passage  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  Saviour.  To  suppose  him  to  have  said  this  merely  ia 
the  way  of  accommodation  to  Jewish  prejudices  about  the 
meaning  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
to  suppose  him  guilty  of  fraud.  If  we  should  call  \i  pious  fraud, 
this  would  not  better  the  case,  in  the  view  of  any  ingenuous 
and  truth-loving  mind.  Or,  as  the  only  alternative,  they  must 
suppose  the  Saviour,  like  the  Jews  in  general,  to  have  either 
trifled  with  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  or  to  have  been 
really  ignorant  of  their  true  import.  The  responsibihty  of  ei- 
ther or  any  of  these  assertions  or  suppositions,  is  what  I  would 
not  desire  to  incur ;  and  above  all  at  the  time  when  he,  who  is 
thus  virtually  accused  of  fraud  or  of  ignorance,  shall  sit  as  my 
Judge,  in  a  trial  whose  results  are  to  last  for  eternity. 

There  is  indeed  one  other  way  of  escape  ;  which  is,  by  de- 
nying that  Luke  has  correctly  reported  the  words  of  Christ. 

But  as  the  New  Testament  is  full  of  the  same  kind  of  words, 
from  beginning  to  end,  either  the  credibility  of  it  throughout, 
in  regard  to  this  subject,  must  be  rejected ;  or  else  it  must 
come  simply  to  this,  that  we  are  to  believe  only  such  parts 
and  so  much  of  it,  as  we  may  a  priori  judge  to  be  probable 
and  credible.  This  appears  to  be  the  exact  position  of  ]VIr. 
Norton  and  many  others.  But  I  regard  the  entire  rejection 
of  it  as  more  creditable  to  the  understanding,  and  even  to  the 
heart,  than  this  position  ;  for  it  virtually  abjures  faith  in  the 
testimony  of  past  ages  to  such  an  extent,  as  must  render  all 
the  past  but  a  dark  and  troubled  sea  of  elements  eternally 
fluctuating,  on  which  no  one  can  ever  launch  with  any  good 
ground  of  hope  that  he  may  reach  a  safe  and  peaceful  har- 
bour. The  unbelief  that  consistently  sets  aside  the  whole, 
shows  a  more  manly  and  energetic  attitude  of  mind  ;  and  in 
my  opinion,  it  is  much  more  likely  to  be  convinced  at  last  of 
error,  than  he  is  who  thinks  that  he  is  already  a  believer  and 
is  safe,  while  he  virtually  rejects  from  the  Gospel  all  which 


§  18.  DIVERSE  APPEALS  OP  N.  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD.    321 

makes  it  a  Gospel,  in  distinction  from  the  teachings  of  Socra- 
tes, of  Plato,  of  Plutarch,  of  Cicero,  and  of  Seneca. 

I  add  only  one  remark,  which  is  but  a  repetition  of  what 
has  already  been  said.  The  names  here  given  to  the  various 
divisions  of  the  sacred  books,  (and  which  have  already  been 
explained),  must,  from  their  very  nature,  indicate  a  definite 
and  well  hiown  collection  of  books  ranked  under  each  class ; 
for  otherwise  they  could  have  no  real  significance  to  the  dis- 
ciples. When  the  civilian  says,  that  the  Pandects  and  -^- 
vellae  of  Justinian  have  decided  a  certain  point  so,  or  so,  does 
any  other  civilian,  or  any  body  else  who  knows  anything 
of  the  works  in  question,  entertain  any  doubt  as  to  what  and 
how  many  books  or  treatises  are  meant  ?  When  I  speak  of 
the  works  of  Virgil  at  one  time,  and  at  another  speak  of  the 
Bucolics,  the  Georgics,  and  the  Eneid,  am  I  not  well  and  defi- 
nitely understood  by  classical  readers  in  both  cases  ?  The 
decision,  however,  of  questions  so  easy  and  obvious  as  these, 
does  not  call  for  any  enlargement  on  this  topic. 

(2)  Another  mode  of  general  reference  to  the  Scriptures 
as  a  body,  or  as  a  collection  of  books  fixed  and  definite,  is  by 
giving  to  the  whole  in  union  a  general  name,  which  usage 
has  appropriated  to  them  in  order  to  distinguish  them ;  which 
name  of  course  comprises  within  its  import  all  the  books  that 
are  thus  united. 

Such  in  particular  is  the  word  t]  yQa(f]^,  or  its  plural  at  yga- 
qjai,  corresponding  exactly  to  our  word  Scripture  and  Scrip' 
tures,  i.  e.  the  writing,  the  writings.  Every  one  sees  what 
part  the  article  plays  here.  It  specificates,  and  distinguishes 
the  meaning  of  the  word  to  which  it  applies  from  its  common 
or  generic  signification,  viz.  a  writing,  i.  e.  any  writing. 
The  writing  is  one  which  stands  distinguished  from  other 
writings.  The  same  also  may  be  said  of  cd  ygaifai  (plur.) 
the  Scriptures,  i.  e.  the  writings  which  are  distinguished  from 
all  others.     In  the  same  manner  the  Moslem  calls  his  Koran 

the  Scripture  (  oLc^  Jl  )  ;  indeed  the  word  Koran  itself 

has  virtually  the  same  meaning,  viz.  the  reading,  or  that  which 


322   §  18.  DIVERSE  APPEALS  OF  N.  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

is  to  be  read.  As  to  the  singular  yQC/cqjtj,  or  the  plural  yQU' 
q)ai,  there  is  no  appreciable  difference  in  the  meaning.  The 
singular  is  employed  merely  with  reference  to  the  whole  col- 
lection in  its  unity ;  the  plural,  in  reference  to  the  same,  but 
as  being  made  up  of  many  parts.  In  like  manner  the  Latins 
might  and  did  say  of  a  letter,  for  example,  that  it  was  epistola 
or  literae.  Of  course,  in  my  references  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment passages,  I  shall  pay  no  regard  to  the  number,  whether 
singular  or  plural,  of  the  noun  which  designates  the  Scrip- 
tures. In  Enghsh  we  have  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the 
same  idiom  ;  for  we  say  the  Scripture,  and  the  Scriptures, 
without  any  other  distinction  of  meaning  than  the  one  already 
pointed  out.     Let  us  follow  the  New  Testament  in  order. 

Matt.  22:  29,  Jesus  says  to  the  Sadducees :  "  Ye  do  err, 
not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God."  In 
other  words,  a  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  would  save  you 
from  error,  viz.  in  regard  to  the  things  of  a  future  state.  The 
same  in  Mark  12:  24. 

Matt.  26:  54,  Jesus  had  just  said,  that  he  could  pray  to  his 
Father,  and  obtain  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  to  de- 
liver him  from  the  sufferings  which  were  at  hand ;  he  then 
adds :  "  But  how  then  could  the  Scriptures  be  fulfilled,  that 
this  must  so  be  ?"  i.  e.  that  he  must  so  suffer.  Of  course  this 
is  a  declaration,  that  what  is  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament 
respecting  his  sufferings  and  death,  must  of  necessity  have  a 
fulfilment. 

Matt.  2G:  56,  the  writer  is  speaking  of  the  apprehension  of 
Jesus  by  the  enraged  multitude,  and  the  violence  done  to 
him  ;  he  then  adds  :  "  Now  all  this  took  place,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  prophets  might  be  fulfilled."  Prophets,  in  the 
language  of  the  Jews,  were,  as  we  have  seen,  all  the  writers 
of  the  Old  Testament,  i.  e.  they  supposed  them  all  to  be  inspir- 
ed, which  is  the  true  original  idea  of  a  prophet.  Here,  by 
the  prophets  is  meant,  those  writers  in  the  Bible  who  had 
predicted  the  sufferings  of  Christ.     Tiie  same  in  Mark  14:  49. 

Mark  12:  10,  "  Have  ye  not  read  this  Scripture  ?  the 
stone  which  the  builders  rejected,  etc.,"  where  Jesus  quotes 


§  18.    DIVERSE  APPEALS  OF    N.  TEST.  TO  THE  OtD.   '323 

from  the  body  of  Scripture  a  particular  passage,  (which  he 
names  Scripture,  just  as  we  now  name  such  a  quotation). 
The  object  is  to  show,  that  the  Scriptures  had  predicted  what 
must  be  fulfilled. 

Mark  15:  28,  "  The  Scripture  was  fulfilled  which  says  : 
He  shall  be  numbered  with  the  transgressors."  If  the  fulfil- 
ment here  is  not  predicated  of  a  direct  prediction,  but  the 
happening  of  an  event  of  the  like  nature  with  one  recorded 
in  Scripture,  still  the  reference  to  the  authority  of  Scripture 
stands  substantially  on  the  same  ground  as  if  the  prediction 
were  more  direct. 

Luke  4:  21,  Jesus,  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth,  had  read 
a  passage  from  Isa.  61:  1  seq.,  which  he  applies  (as  a  predic- 
tion) to  himself,  and  then  adds :  "  To-day,  in  your  hearing, 
is  this  Scripture  fulfilled."  In  other  words,  the  predictions 
in  the  Old  Testament  have  respect  to  him,  and  he  it  is  who 
fulfils  them.     Of  course,  they  are  acknowledged  as  divine. 

Luke  24:  27,  Jesus  is  addressing  his  wondering  and  in- 
credulous disciples,  after  his  resurrection  :  "  Beginning  from 
Moses  and  from  all  the  Prophets,  he  explained  to  them  the 
things  concerning  himself  in  all  the  Scriptures."  Here  are 
two  recognisances  of  Scripture  which  are  worthy  of  atten- 
tion ;  (1)  Moses  and  all  the  Prophets.  (2)  There  are  things 
respecting  Christ  in  all  the  Scriptures. 

Luke  24:  45,  "  Then  opened  he  their  minds  to  understand 
the  Scriptures."  The  preceding  verse  speaks  of  the  Law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms.  These  then  constitute  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  appellation  of  course  means  in  such  a  case  the 
whole  of  them  ;  for  nothing  short  of  this  is  designated  by  tag 
YQaq)dg  here.- 

John  2:  22,  the  disciples  are  said,  after  his  resurrection,  to 
have  remembered  the  words  of  Jesus,  (destroy  this  tem- 
ple, and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up),  and  then  "  they  be- 
lieved the  Scripture  ;"  viz.  the  Scripture  which  predicts  his 
death  and  resurrection. 

John  5:  39,  Jesus  bids  the  Jews  to  "  Search  the  Scrip- 
tures, because  in  them  they  think  they  have  eternal  life,  and 


324     §  18.    DIVERSE  APPEALS  OF    N.  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

these  very  Scriptures  are  those  which  testify  of  him."  In 
other  words,  the  Scriptures,  i.  e.  the  Old  Testament,  is  the 
authority,  which  is  to  decide  between  him  and  the  Jews  in 
respect  to  his  claims. 

John  10:  35,  Jesus  says  to  the  Jews :  "  If  it  [the  Law, 
which  however  is  here  used  to  designate  the  Scriptures  in 
general]  called  them  gods  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came, 
and  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  etc."  Why  cannot  the 
Scripture  be  broken  ?  Plainly  because  it  is  the  word  of  God. 
Is  not  this  then  of  paramount  and  divine  authority  ?  And 
here  Scripture  stands  for  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible,  because 
the  proposition  plainly  amounts  to  this,  viz.  that  no  part  or 
portion  of  the  Scripture  can  be  broken. 

John  13:  18,  "  But  [this  takes  place]  that  the  Scrip- 
ture might  be  fulfilled :  He  who  eateth  bread  with  me,  etc." 
In  other  words  ;  whatever  is  directly  or  indirectly  foretold  or 
prefigured  in  the  Scripture,  must  needs  be  fulfilled. 

John  17:  12,  None  of  the  true  disciples  are  to  perish,  but 
the  son  of  perdition  must  perish,  "  that  the  Scripture  might 
be  fulfilled."  That  is,  all  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment must  have  a  completion. 

John  19:  24,  "  That  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled  which 
saith :  They  divided  my  garments  among  themselves,"  etc. 
To  the  same  purpose  as  the  preceding  quotation. 

John  19:  36,  The  soldiers  broke  not  the  limbs  of  Jesus, 
"  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  which  saith :  Not  a 
bone  of  him  shall  be  broken."  The  Scripture  here  is  the  in- 
junction respecting  the  paschal  lamb,  the  prototype  of  Jesus, 
Ex.  12:  46.  But  the  reference  to  its  authority  is  not  the  less, 
because  the  fulfilment  appertains  to  a  typical  prediction. 
Nay,  the  case  is  even  stronger  than  that  of  a  direct  prediction. 
It  stands  thus :  Not  only  direct  predictions  must  be  fulfilled, 
but  even  indirect  or  typical  ones.  In  other  words  :  Nothing 
of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  can  fail. 

John  19:  37,  "  Again  another  Scripture  saith  :  They  shall 
look  on  him  whom  they  have  pierced."  The  piercing  of  Je- 
sus' side  by  one  of  the  soldiers,  is  the  occasion  of  this  quota- 


§  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD.      325 

tion.     It  is  regarded  as  being  a  prediction  of  the  Scripture, 
and  therefore  it  must  needs  be  fulfilled. 

John  20:  9,  "  As  yet  they  [the  disciples]  knew  not  the 
Scripture,  that  he  must  rise  from  the  dead."  Whatever  the 
Scripture  has  determined  must  of  course  take  place,  is  the 
tenor  of  the  sentiment. 

Acts  1:  16,  Peter  says,  in  his  address  to  the  apostles:' 
"  Brethren,  the  Scripture  must  needs  be  fulfilled,  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  foretold  by  the  mouth  of  David."  This  involves 
the  necessity  that  the  predictions  should  be  accomplished,  and 
the  express  idea  of  the  inspiration  of  the  writer  of  it  by  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Acts  8:  35,  Phihp,  beginning  "  with  this  Scripture  [Isa. 
53:  7  seq.],  preached  to  him  Jesus."  That  is,  Philip  showed 
to  the  eunuch  that  Christ  is  the  subject  of  description  in  Isa. 
liii. 

Acts  17:  2  seq.,  Paul  "  as  his  custom  was  .  .  .  discoursed  to 
them  from  the  Scriptures,  explaining  [them],  and  setting 
forth  that  Christ  must  needs  suffer  and  rise  from  the  dead." 
In  other  words,  the  Messianic  predictions  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment must  be  fulfilled. 

Acts  17:  11,  the  apostle  praises  the  Beraeans,  not  only  be- 
cause "they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness,  but  inves- 
tigated the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  these  things  were  so  ;" 
i.  e.  they  put  the  preaching  of  Paul  to  the  test  of  the  0.  Test. 
Scriptures ;  and  they  are  called  by  him  more  noble  for  so 
doing. 

Acts  18:  24,  ApoUos  is  commended  as  an  eloquent  preach- 
er, because  "  he  was  mighty  in  the  Scriptures."  If  the  Old 
Testament,  as  Mr.  Norton  avers,  is  a  book  utterly  inconsis- 
tent with  Christianity,  how  could  Apollos  be  an  excellent 
preacher  from  the  circumstance  of  being  uncommonly  versed 
in  it?  Moreover  it  is  said  of  him  again,  in  v.  28,  that  "he 
showed  from  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ." 

Rom  1:  2,  Paiil  asserts  that  "the  Gospel  was  before  an- 
nounced by  the  prophets  in  the  holy  Scriptures." 

In  Rom.  4:  3,  the  same  apostle  appeals  to  "  what  the  Scrip- 

28 


326  §  18.   APPEALS  OF  NETV  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

ture  saith,"  in  order  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith.  In  Rom.  9:  17,  he  does  the  same  thing  in  order  to 
estabhsh  the  divine  sovereignty  ;  "  For  the  Scripture  saith  to 
Pharaoh,  etc."  In  Rom.  10:  11,  he  makes  the  same  appeal, 
"for  the  Scripture  saith;"  this  he  does  in  order  to  establish 
the  certainty  that  the  behever  shall  be  rewarded.  In  Rom. 
15:  4,  he  speaks  of  our  possessing  hope,  "  through  the  con- 
solation of  the  Scripture."  In  Rom.  16:  26,  he  speaks  of 
the  gospel  as  being  made  known  to  the  Gentiles  "  by  the 
prophetic  Scriptures,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
eternal  God  unto  obedience  of  the  faith."  And  are  these  the 
books,  then,  which  we  are  at  liberty  to  pronounce  inconsistent 
with  the  gospel  ? 

In  1  Cor.  15:  3,  Paul  says  that  "  Christ  died  for  our  sins, 
according  to  the  Scriptures."  And  in  v.  4,  that  "  He  was 
buried,  and  rose  again  on  the  third  day,  according  to  the 
Scriptures."  In  Gal.  3:  8,  he  says,  that  "the  Scripture 
....  before  announced  the  gospel  to  Abraham,  that  in  him 
all  the  nations  should  be  blessed."  In  1  Tim.  5:  18,  he  ap- 
peals to  Scripture  as  confirming  the  sentiment,  that  '  the  la- 
bourer is  worthy  of  his  hire.' 

James,  in  2:  8,  speaks  of  "  the  royal  law,"  (Tliou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself),  as  being  obligatory,  because  it  is 
contained  "  in  the  Scripture."  In  2:  23,  he  appeals  to  Scrip- 
ture as  confirming  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  In 
4:  5,  he  reproves  those  who  think  that  the  Scripture  spealvs 
nEfcjg,  i.  e.  to  no  purpose. 

Peter  refers  to  the  Scripture  as  containing  the  revelation 
of  a  Saviour  precious  and  alWufficient,  1  Pet.  2:  6.  In  2 
Pet.  3:  16,  he  speaks  of  those  who  pervert  the  words  of  Paul 
to  their  own  destruction,  "  as  they  do  the  other  Scriptures ;" 
i.  e.  the  O.  Test.  Scriptures  are"  put  beside  the  writings  of 
Paul,  and  are  ranked  with  them. 

Thus  much  under  the  single  category  of  appeal  to  the  O. 
Test.  Scriptures  by  naming  them  as  a  whole,  or  as  a  collec- 
tion of  sacred  writings  under  the  distinctive  appellation  of  ij 
yQUCp/j  or  ai  yQaopai,  the  Scripture  or  the  Scriptures.     In  sev- 


§  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST,  TO  THE  OLD.     327 

ral  of  the  passages,  their  inspiration  is  expressly  declared  ;  in 
all  of  them  their  paramount  authority  is  openly  and  plainly 
assumed  or  avowed.  It  is  impossible  to  call  this  in  question, 
when  the  matter  and  manner  of  the  appeal  are  fully  taken  in- 
to view. 

(3)  Passages  which  directly  declare,  or  plainly  imply,  the 
inspiration  of  the  O.  Test,  writers. 

2  Tim.  3:  14 — 17,  "Do  thou  continue  in  the  things  that 
thou  hast  learned  and  believed ;  knowing  from  whom  thou 
hast  learned  them,  and  that  from  childhood  thou  hast  known 
the  holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto 
salvation,  through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  Flaaayqacpri  d^Eon- 
^evaiog,  every  Scripture  is  inspired  of  God,  and  is  profitable 
for  doctrine,  for  conviction,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect ;  thorough- 
ly furnished  unto  every  good  work." 

On  this  notable  passage  but  few  remarks  are  needed.  (I) 
Every  Scripture,  Tzaod  yQuqjjj,  i.  e.  every  constituent  part  or 
portion  of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  omission  of  the  article  of 
course  implies,  (not  Tzaaa  rj  yQcccprj,  all  the  Scripture,  spoken 
of  as  merely  a  collective  unity),  is  inspired  of  God.  0£o- 
nvEvarog  cannot  mean  less  than  this.  If  we  might  coin  a 
new  English  word,  to  meet  the  Greek  one  here  employed, 
we  might  render  it  God-inspirited,  which  would  be  altogether 
literal  and  exact.  All  attempts  to  fritter  away  this  plain 
meaning  are  but  vain.  To  appeal  to  the  inspiration  of  hea- 
then poets,  and  to  the  loose  meaning  of  inspired  among  some 
of  the  Christian  fathers,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  What  did 
Paul  mean  ?  is  the  question.  And  of  this  there  can  be  no 
philological  doubt.  Even  De  Wette,  with  all  his  predomi- 
nating incredulity,  says  o^ d^eonvevatog,  that  "it  is  an  expres- 
sion and  idea  which  stands  connected  with  Tivsvfia,  lit.  breath, 
since  one  regarded  the  energy  of  the  divine  Spirit  as  causing 
the  breath  of  life  ;  and  here  it  means  inspired,  durchgeistet, 
i.e.  animated  through  and  through  by  the  Spirit,  geistvoll,  i.  e. 
full  of  the  Spirit."  The  manner  in  which  the  Spirit  operated, 
is  not  here  described  by  Paul,  and  must  be  learned,  if  learned 


328  §  18.    APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

at  all,  from  other  passages  of  Scripture.  (2)  These  Scrip- 
tures are  not  only  itQia,  holy,  sacred,  but  "  they  are  able  to 
make  wise  unto  salvation,"  even  that  salvation  which  is  "  by 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  And  is  such  a  book,  then,  in  opposi^ 
tion  to  Christianity  ?  And  must  it  be  proscribed  and  re- 
jected by  an  "  enlightened  Christian  ?"  So  Mr.  Norton  says; 
but  Paul  has  presented  the  matter  in  a  very  different  light. 

(3)  "Every  Scripture  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  convic- 
tion, for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness."  How 
all  this  can  be,  in  case  the  Old  Testament  is  even  contrary 
to  the  Gospel,  and  unworthy  of  our  regard,  is  for  those  to  ex- 
plain who  maintain  the  latter  position.  Then  again  "the 
man  of  God  becomes  perfect,  and  thoroughly  furnished  for 
every  good  work,"  by  the  use  of  these  same  Scriptures. 

No  one  who  is  acquainted  with  ancient  critical  and  religious 
history,  will  venture  to  maintain  that  any  other  Scriptures 
than  those  of  the  Jews,  were  then  in  general  circulation,  when 
Paul  wrote  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy.  Of  course,  Paul 
has  said  all  this  of  the  Old  Testament.  More  cannot  be  said 
by  any  one,  and  more  need  not  be  said. 

The  only  alternative  is  to  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  epis- 
tle, or  to  reject  the  authority  of  Paul.  Objections,  I  am 
aware,  have  of  late  often  been  made  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  epistle ;  but  they  cannot  stand  before  the  tribunal  of 
criticism.  And  as  to  rejecting  the  authority  of  Paul,  I  have 
only  to  say,  that  he  who  does  this,  raises  the  simple  standard 
of  infidelity,  and  enlists  under  it.  It  is  not  my  present  object 
to  dispute  with  such. 

2  Pet.  1:  20,  21,  "  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy  is 
of  one's  own  power  of  disclosure ;  for  prophecy  in  time  past 
was  not  introduced  by  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  I  have  trans- 
lated idUit;  iTTtlvoecog  by  one's  poiver  of  disclosure.  This 
locus  vexatissimus,  I  am  well  aware,  has  been  moulded  into 
almost  every  shape,  and  made  to  mean  a  great  variety  of 
things.  Among  the  rest  it  has  been  made  to  patronize  the 
doctrine,  that  no  prophet  understood  or  could  explain  what  he 


§  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD.     329 

himself,  or  at  least  his  own  words,  meant !  Of  such  an  ab- 
surdity I  say  nothing.  The  plain  sense  is,  that  prophecy 
comes,  not  by  the  prophet's  own  power  of  disclosure,  or  of  re- 
moving the  veil  from  the  future,  but  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Let  it  be  noted,  that  Peter  employs  the  generic 
appellation  7TQO(pi]7T8ia  (without  the  article),  prophecy  in  gene- 
ral, all  that  is  prophetic  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  in  the 
Jewish  sense,  everything  there  is  the  work  of  prophets.  The 
prophets  were  vno  TtPEVfiarog  dyt'ov  cpEQo^evoi,  home  along, 
moved,  influenced,  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thus  does  Peter 
exactly  correspond  with  the  d^mitvivctoQ  of  Paul. 

In  the  preceding  context  Peter  speaks  of  the  prophetic 
word,  i.  e.  the  Old  Test.  Scriptures,  as  a  "  light  shining  in  a 
dark  place,"  and  as  something  ^E^amr^QOv,  more  steadfast, 
sure,  more  to  he  depended  on,  than  what  the  three  disciples  had 
seen  and  heard  in  the  mount  of  transfiguration ;  at  least  such 
seems  to  be  his  sentiment,  in  tlie  connection  in  which  his 
words  stand.  This  is  a  very  striking  passage,  and  must  be 
quite  revolting  to  the  feelings  of  Mr.  Norton  and  those  who 
sympathize  with  him. 

In  Heb.  3:  7,  Paul  cites  a  text  of  Scripture  and  says  con- 
cerning it :  "  As  the  Holy  Spirit  saith."  He  does  the  same 
in  Heb.  12:15,  and  introduces  it  by  saying:  "The  Holy 
Spirit  testifies  to  us." 

In  1  Pet.  1:  10 — 12  is  a  passage,  which  affirms  that  "re- 
specting [gospel]  salvation,  the  prophets  have  sought  out  and 
made  diligent  scrutiny,  who  prophesied  respecting  the  grace 
that  was  to  be  revealed  .  .  .  To  whom  it  was  revealed,  that 
not  unto  themselves,  but  unto  us,  they  ministered  the  things 
which,"  etc.  The  idea  of  a  revelation  supernaturally  made 
lies  upon  the  very  face  of  this  representation. 

Heb.  1:  1  declares,  that  "  God  at  sundry  times  and  in  di- 
vers manners  spake  to  the  f^ithers  by  the  prophets."  If  God 
spake  by  them,  then  who  shall  be  absolved  from  listening  to 
what  he  said  ?  If  God  spake  by  them,  then  they  have  not 
said  what  is  contradictory  to  Christianity,  or  subversive  of  it. 
In  1  Cor.  9:  9,  10,  Paul,  after  quoting  a  passage  from  the 

28* 


330  §  18.   APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

Mosaic  Law,  forbidding  to  muzzle  the  ox  which  treadeth  out 
the  corn,  adds  :  ^'  Doth  God  care  for  oxen  ?  Or  does  he  say 
this  truly  for  our  sakes  ?  On  our  account  it  was  ivntten,  that 
he  who  i^lougheth  should  plough  in  hope,  and  he  who  reapeth 
should  be  a  partaker  in  hope."  On  this  I  remark  that  the 
apostle  says,  (1)  That  God  says  what  is  here  quoted.  (2) 
That  he  says  it  mainly  on  our  account ;  and  of  course  it  fol- 
lows that  we  are  to  read  and  profit  by  it. 

In  Rom.  1:  1,  Paul  says,  that  God  before  declared  the  gos- 
pel, by  his  prophets,  in  the  holy  Scriptures."  The  authority 
of  these  Scriptures  then  consists  in  this,  viz.  that  they  contain 
the  declarations  of  God. 

But  enough  on  the  topic  of  inspiration.  It  is  impossible, 
after  acquiring  a  proper  knowledge  of  what  Philo  and  Jose- 
phus  have  unequivocally  taught  us  in  regard  to  the  belief  of 
the  Jews  in  the  inspiration  of  their  Scriptures,  to  read  the 
New  Testament  and  overlook  the  fact,  that  everywhere  and 
always  the  supreme  authority  of  the  sacred  books  is  either 
directly  asserted,  or  conceded  by  implication.  Scripture  is  the 
supreme  arbiter,  in  all  cases  where  a  decision  is  required.  The 
validity  of  the  Redeemer's  mission,  and  his  claims,  are  tried 
by  it ;  the  doctrines  which  the  apostles  preached  are  tried  by 
it;  every  virtue  either  of  morality  or  piety  is  sanctioned  by 
it.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  what  the  apostles  and  evange- 
lists have  taught,  in  respect  to  this  subject,  without  at  the 
same  time  assuming,  that  our  own  subjective  views  are  to 
be  the  paramount  authority,  in  all  cases  where  authority  is 
needed. 

(4)  Under  the  head  of  miscellaneous  recognitions  of  the 
authority  of  the  O.  Test.  Scriptures,  it  were  easy  to  produce 
texts  almost  without  number.  I  must  content  myself,  how- 
ever, with  a  general  exhibition  of  them,  thus  putting  the  read- 
er in  a  condition  easily  to  pursue  this  investigation  in  its  mi- 
nuter particulars,  by  giving  him  an  index  to  the  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament  which  are  cited  or  alluded  to  in  the  New. 


§  18.   APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 


331 


Matthew. 

1:  23— Isa.  7:  14. 

2:  6— Mic.  5:  1. 

2:  15— Hos.  11:  1. 

2:  18— Jer.  31:  15. 

3:  3— Isa.  40:  3-5. 

4:  4— Deut.  8:  3. 

4:  6— Vs.  91:  n. 

4:  7 — Deut.  6:  16. 

4:  10— Deut.  6:  13. 

4:  15  seq.— Isa.  8:  23.  9:  1. 

5:5— Ps.  37:  II. 

5:  21— Ex.  20:  13. 

5:  27— Ex.  20:  14. 

5:  31— Deut.  24:  1. 

5:  33— Ex.  20:  7. 

5:  38— Ex.  21:  24.  Lev.  24:  20. 

5:  43— Lev.  19:  18. 

8:  4 — Lev.  14:  2  seq. 

8:  17— Isa.  53:  4. 

9:  1.3— Hos.  6:  6. 
10:  35,  3G— Mic.  7:  6. 
11:  5— Isa.  29:  18  seq.  61:  1. 
11:  10— Mai.  3:  1. 
11:  14— Mai.  4:  5. 
12:  3—1  Sam.  21:  6. 
12:  5— Num.  28:  9. 
12:  7— Hos.  6:  6. 
12:  18  seq. — Isa.  42:  1  seq. 
12:40— Jon.  1:  17. 
12:  41 — Jon.  3:  5  seq. 
12:  42 — 1  Kiugs  10:  1. 
13:  14  seq — Isa.  6:  9  seq. 
13:  35— Ps.  78:  2. 
15:  4— Ex.  20:  12.  Deut.  5:  16. 
15:  8,  9— Isa.  29:  13. 
19:  5— Gen.  2:  24. 
19:  7,  8— Deut.  24:  1. 
19:  18  seq.  —  Ex.  20  :  12   seq 

Lev.  19: 
21:  5— Zech.  9:  9. 
21:  13— Isa.  56:  7.  Jer.  7. 


21:  16— Ps.  8:  2. 

21:  42— Ps.  118:  22. 

21:  44— Isa.  8:  14  seq. 

22:  24— Deut.  25:  5. 

22.  32— Ex.  3:  6. 

22:  37— Deut.  6:  5. 

22:  39— Lev.  19:  18. 

22:  44— Ps.  110:  1. 

23:  35— Gen.  4:  8. 

23:  39— Ps.  118:  26. 

24:  15— Dan.  9:  27. 

24:  29— Isa.  13:  10. 

24:  37  seq. — Gen.  7:  4  seq. 

26:  31— Zech.  13:  7. 

27:  9— Zech.  11:  12  seq. 

27:  35— Ps.  22:  18. 

27:  43— Ps.  22:  8. 

27:  46— Ps.  22:  1. 

Mark. 

1:  2— Mai.  3:  1. 

1:  3— Isa.  40:  3. 

1:  44 — Lev.  14:  2  seq. 

2:  25,  6—1  Sam.  21:  6. 

4:  12— Isa.  6:  9. 

7:  6,  7— Isa.  29:  13. 

7:  10— Ex.  20:  12. 

9:  14— Isa.  66:  44. 
10:  4— Deut.  24:  1. 
10:  7— Gen.  2:  24. 
11:  17— Isa.  56:  7.  Jer.  7:  11. 
12:  10,  11— Ps.  118:  22. 
12:  19 — Deut.  25:  5. 
12:  26— Ex.  3:  6. 
12:  29  seq. — Deut.  6:  4  seq. 
12:  31— Lev.  19:  18. 
12:  36— Ps.  110:  1. 
13:  14— Dan.  9:  27. 
13:  24— Isa.  13:  9  seq. 
14:  27 — Zech.  13:  7. 
15:  28— Isa.  53:  12. 
15:  34—22:  1. 


332 


§  18.   APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 


Luke. 

1:  33— Dan.  2:  44. 

1:  55 — Gen.  17:  19. 

1:  73— Gen.  22:  16. 

2:  21,  22— Lev.  12:  3,  4. 

2:  23— Ex.  13:  2. 

2:  24— Lev.  12:  6. 

3:  4  seq. — Is.  40:  3  seq. 

4:  4— Deut.  8:  3. 

4:  8— Dent.  6:  13. 

4:  10,  11— Ps.  91:  11. 

4:  12— Deut  6:  16. 

4:  18,  19— Isa.  61:  1  seq. 

4:  25,  26—1  K.  17:  1,  9. 

4:  27—2  K.  5:  14. 

5:  14— Lev.  14:  2 — 4. 

6:  3,  4—1  Sam.  21:  6. 

7:  27— Mai.  3:  1. 
10:  27— Deut.  6:  5.  Lev.  19: 18. 
10:  28— Lev.  18:  5. 
11:  31—1  K.  10:  1. 
11:  51— Gen.  4:  8. 
13:  35— Ps.  118:  26. 
17:  27— Gen.  7:  7. 
17:  29— Gen.  19:  15. 
17:  32— Gen.  19:  26. 
18:  20— Ex.  20:  12  seq. 
19:  46— Isa  56:  7.  Jer.  7:  11. 
20:  17— Ps.  118:22. 
20:  28— Deut.  25:  5. 
20:  37— Ex.  3:  6. 
20:  42,  43— Ps.  110:  1. 
22:  37— Is.  53:  12. 
23:  30— Hos.  10:  8. 

Jolm. 
1:  23— Is.  40:  3. 
1:  51— Gen.  28:  12. 
2:  17- Ps.  69:  9. 
3:  14— Num.  21:  8,  9. 
6:  31— Ps.  78:  24. 
6:  45— Is.  54:  13. 
7:  22— Lev.  12:  3. 


7:  38— Is.  58:  11. 

7:  42— Ps.  89:  4.  Mic.  5:  1. 

8:  5— Lev.  20:  10. 

8:  17— Deut.  17:  6. 
10:  34— Ps.  82:  6. 
12:  13— Ps.  118:  25,  26. 
12:  15— Zech.  9:  9. 
12:  34— Ps.  110:  4. 
12:  38— Is.  53:  1. 
12:  40— Isa.  6:  9,  10. 
13:  18— Ps.  41:9. 
15:25— Ps.  35:  19. 
17:  12— Ps.  109:  8,  17. 
19:  24— Ps.  22:  18. 
19:  28— Ps.  69:  21. 
19:  36— Ex.  12:  46. 
19:  37— Zech.  12:  10. 

Acts. 
1:  16,  20— Ps.  69:  25.  109;  8. 
2:  16  seq.— Joel  2:  28  seq. 
2:  25— Ps.  16:  8. 
2:  31— Ps.  16:  10. 
2:  34— Ps.  110:  1. 
3:  22— Deut.  18:  15. 
3:  25— Gen.  12:  3. 
4:  11— Ps.  118:  22. 
4:  2S— Ps.  2:  1. 
7:  2— Gen.  12:  1. 
7:  6,  7— Gen.  15:  13  seq. 
7:  8— Gen.  17:  10. 
7:  9— Gen.  37:  28. 
7:  17— Ex.  1:  7. 
7:  20— Ex.  2:  2. 
7:  24— Ex.  2:  11. 
7:  30— Ex.  3:  2. 
7:  37— Deut.  18:  15. 
7:  38— Ex.  19:  3. 
7:  39— Ex.  32:  1. 
7:  42— Amos  5:  25. 
7:  45— Josh.  3:  14. 
7:  46—2  Sam.  7:  1  seq. 
7:  48— Isa.  66:  1. 


§  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 


333 


8:  32— Isa.  53:  7. 

9:  26— Hos.  1:  10. 

10:  34— Deut.  10:  17. 

9:  27  seq.— Isa.  10:  22  seq. 

]3:  17— Ex.  1:  7.   12:  37  seq. 

9:  29     Isa.  1:  9. 

13:  18— Deut.  1:  31. 

9:  33    Isa.  8:  14.  28:  16. 

13:  22—1  Sam.  16:  13.  Ps.  89: 

10:  5— Lev.  18:  5. 

20. 

10:  6  seq.— Deut.  30:  12  seq 

13:  33— Ps.  2:  7. 

10:  11— Isa.  28:  16. 

13:  34— Isa.  55:  3. 

10:  13     Joel  2:  32. 

13:  35— Ps.  16:  10. 

10:  15     Isa.  52:  7. 

12:  36—1  Kings  2:  10. 

10:  16     Isa.  53:  1. 

12:  41— Hab.  1:  5. 

10:  18— Ps.  19:  4. 

12:  47— Isa.  49:  6. 

10:  19     Deut.  32:  21. 

15:  16— Amos  9:  11. 

10:  20  seq. — Isa.  65:  1  seq. 

23:  5— Ex.  22:  28. 

11:3—1  Kings  19:  10,  14. 

28:  26— Isa.  6:  9  seq. 

11:3     1  Kings  19:  18. 

11:  8— Isa.  29:  10.  6:  9. 

Romans. 

11:  9  seq.— Ps.  69:  22  seq. 

1:  17— Hab.  2:  4. 

11:  26— Isa.  59:  20. 

2:  6— Prov.  24:  12. 

11:27— Jer.  31:  33  seq. 

2:  1 1— Deut.  10:  17. 

11:  34— Isa.  40:  13. 

2:  24— Isa.  52:  5. 

11:35— Job  41:  11. 

3:4— Ps.  51:4. 

12:9     Amos  5:  15. 

3:  10— Ps.  14:  1  seq. 

12:  19     Deut.  32:35. 

3:  13     Ps.  5:  9.  140:  3. 

12:  20— Prov.  25:  21  seq. 

3:  14— Ps.  10:  7. 

13:  9— Ex.  20:  13  seq. 

3:  15-17— Isa.  59:  7,  8. 

14:  11— Isa.  45:  23. 

3:  18— Ps.  36:  1. 

15:  3     Ps.  69:  9. 

4:  3     Gen.  15:  6. 

15:9— Ps.  18:49. 

4:  6  seq.— Ps.  32:  1  seq. 

15:  10    Deut.  32:  43. 

4:  ll_Gen.  17:  10. 

15:  11— Pfe.  117:  1.  ^ 

4:  17     Gen.  17:  5. 

15:  12— Isa.  11:  10. 

4:  18— Gen.  15:  5. 

15:  21— Isa.  52:  15. 

7:  7— Ex.  20:  17. 

8:  36     Ps.  44:  22. 

1  Corinthians. 

9:  7— Gen.  21:  12. 

1:  19     Isa.  29:  14. 

9:  9     Gen.  18:  10. 

1:  20     Isa.  44:  25. 

9:  12— Gen.  25:  23. 

1:  21— Jer.  9:  23. 

9:13     Mai.  1:2,  3. 

2:  9— Isa.  64:  4. 

9:  15     Ex.  33:  19. 

2:  1.5— Isa.  40:  13. 

9:  17— Ex.  9:  16. 

3:  19— Job  5:  13. 

9:  20     Isa.  45:  9. 

3:  20— Ps.  94:  1 1. 

9:  21— Jer.  18:  6. 

5:  13— Deut.  17:  7. 

9:25    llos.  2:23. 

6:  16     Gen.  2:  24. 

334 


§  18.    APPEALS  OF  NE'W  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 


9:  9— Dent.  25:  4. 

9:  13— Deut  18:  1. 
10:  1— Ex.  13:  21.  14:  22. 
10:  3,  4— Ex.  ]6:  15.  17:  6. 
10:  7— Ex.  32:  6. 
10:  8— Num.  25:  1,  9. 
10:  9— Ex.  17:  2,  7.  Num.  21:  6. 
10:  10— Num.  14:  2,  27,  29. 
10:  26— Ps.  24:  1. 
14:  21— Is.  28:  11. 
14:  34 — Gen.  3:  16. 
15:  3— Is.  53:  8,  9.  Ps.  22. 
15:  4— Ps.  16:  10. 
15:25— Ps.  110:1. 
15:  27— Ps.  8:  6. 
15:  32— Is.  22:  13. 
15:  45— Gen.  2:  7. 
15:  54,  55— Is.  25:  8.  Hos.  13: 14. 

2  Corinthians. 
4:  13— Ps.  116:  10. 
6:  2— Is.  49:  8. 
6:  16— Lev.  26:  12. 
6:  17— Is.  52:  11. 
6:  18— Jer.  31:  1,  9. 
8:  15— Ex.  16,  18. 
9:  7— Ex.  35:  5. 
9:  9-^Ps.  112:  9. 
9:  10— Is.  55:  10. 
11:3— Gen.  3:  4. 

Galatians. 
2:  la—Ps.  143:  2. 
3:  6— Gen.  15:  6. 
3:  8— Gen.  12:  3. 
3:  10— Deut.  27:  26. 
3:  11— Hab.  2:  4. 
3:  12— Lev.  18:  5. 
3:  13— Deut.  21:  23. 
3:  1&— Gen.  17:  7. 
3:  17— Ex.  12:  40  seq. 
4:  22— Gen.  21:  2,  9. 
4:  27— Is.  54:  1. 


4:  30— Gen.  10:  12. 
5:  14— Lev.  19:  18. 

Ephesians. 
2:  17— Is.  57:  la 
4:  8— Ps.  68:  18. 
4:  26— Ps.  4:  4. 
4:  30— Gen.  2:  23  seq. 
6:  2— Ex.  20:  12. 
6:  9— Job  34:  19. 

Philippians. 
2:  10— Is.  45:  23. 

Colossians. 
2:  11— Deut.  30:  6. 
3:  25— Job  34:  19. 

2  Thessalonians. 
2:  4— Dan.  11:  36. 
2:  8— Is.  11:  4. 

1  Timothy. 

2:  13— Gen.  1:  27.  2:  18. 
2:  14— Gen.  3:  6. 
2:  18— Deut.  25:  4.  Lev.  19: 13. 
6:  7— Ps.  49:  17. 

2  Timothy. 

2:  19— Num.  16:  5. 
3:8— Ex.  7:  11,22. 

Hebrews. 
1:  5— Ps.  2:  7. 
1:  6— Ps.  97:  7. 
1:  7_Ps.  104:  4. 
1:  8— Ps.  45:  6  seq. 
1:  10  seq.— Is.  34:  4.  51:  6. 
1:  13— Ps.  110:  1. 
2:  2— Deut.  27:  26. 
2:  6  seq. — Ps.  8:  4  seq. 
2:  12— Ps.  22:  22. 
2:  13— Ps.  18;  2. 


§  18.   APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD.  335 


2:  13— Is.  8:  18. 

3:  2— Num.  12:  7. 

3:  7— Ps.  95:  7. 

3:  17— Num.  14:  32—437. 

4:3— Ps.  95:11. 

4:  4— Gen.  2:  2. 

4:  7— Ps.  95:  7. 

5:  4—1  Chron.  23:  13. 

5:  5— Ps.  2:  7. 

5:  6— Ps.  110:  4. 

6:  14— Gen.  22:  16. 

7:  1— Gen.  14:  18. 

7:  17,  21— Ps.  110:  4. 

8:  5— Ex.  25:  40. 

8:  8  seq.— Jer.  31:  31  seq. 

9:  13— Lev.  16:  14. 

9:  20— Ex.  24:  8. 
10:  5  seq.— Ps.  40:  7  seq. 
10:  12,  13— Ps.  110:  1. 
10:  16  seq. — Jer.  31:  33  seq. 
10:  28— Deut.  17:  6. 
10:  30— Deut.  32:  35. 
10:  37  seq.— Hab.  2:  3  seq. 
11:  3— Gen.  1:  1.  Ps.  33:  6. 
11:  4— Gen.  4:  4. 
11:  5_Gen.  5:  24. 
11:  7— Gen.  6:  14—22. 
11:  8— Gen.  12:  1,  4. 
11:  13— Gen.  47:9. 
11:  17— Gen.  22:  1  seq. 
11:  18— Gen.  21:  12. 
11:  20— Gen.  27:  27  seq. 
11:  21— Gen.  48:  16.  47:  31. 
11:  22— Gen.  50:  24. 
11:  23— Ex.  2:  2. 
11:28- Ex.  12:  11  seq. 
11:  29— Ex.  14:  22. 
11:  30— Josh.  6:  20. 
11:  31— Josh.  2:  1. 
11:  32— Judg.  6:  11  seq.    4:  14. 
14:  1  seq.  11:  1  seq.  1  Sam. 
6:  13  seq.   1  Sam.  3:  19  seq. 
Judg.  14:  5  sq.  Dan.  6: 16  sq. 


11:  34— Dan.  3:  20  seq. 

11:  35—2  K.  4:  20. 

12:  5  seq. — Pro  v.  3:  11  seq. 

12:  9— Num.  27:  16. 

12:  12  seq.— Is.  35:  3. 

12:  15— Deut.  29:  18. 

12:  16— Gen.  25:  31  seq. 

12:  18— Ex.  19:  12  seq. 

12:  20— Ex.  19:  13. 

12:  21— Deut.  9:  19. 

12:  26— Hag.  2:  6. 

12:  29— Deut.  4:  24. 

13:  5— Josh.  1:  5. 

13:6— Ps.  118:6. 

13:  11— Lev.  4:  11  seq.  16:27 

13:  14— Mic.  2:  10. 

James. 
1:  19— Prov.  17:  27. 
2:  1— Lev.  19:  15. 
2:  8— Lev.  19:  18. 
2:  11— Ex.  20:  13  seq. 
2:  21 — Gen.  22:  9  seq, 
2:  23— Gen.  15:  6. 
2:  25 — Josh.  2:  1. 
4:  6— Prov.  3:  34. 
5:  11— Job  1:  20  seq. 
5:  17  seq.— 1  K.  17:  1  seq. 

1  Peter. 
1:  16— Lev.  11:  44. 
1:  24  seq. — Is.  40:  6  seq. 
2:  3— Ps.  34:  8. 
2:4~Ps.  118:22. 
2:  6— Is.  28:  16. 
2:  7— Ps.  118:  22. 
2:  9— Ex.  19:  5  seq. 
2:  10— Hos.  2:23. 
2:  17— Prov.  24:  21. 
2:  22— Is.  53:  4  seq. 
3:  16— Gen.  18:  12. 
3:  JO  seq. — Ps.  34:  12  seq. 
3:  14  seq. — Is.  8:  12  seq. 


336 


§  18.    APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 


3:  20~Gen.  6:  13  seq. 
4:  8— Prov.  10:  12. 
4:  18— Prov.  11:31. 
5:  5— Prov.  3:  34. 
5:  7— Ps.  55:  22. 

2  Peter. 
2:  5— Gen.  7:  23. 
2:  6— Gen.  19:  24  seq. 
2:  15  seq. — Num.  22. 
2:  22— Prov.  26:  11. 
3:  4— Ezek.  12:  21  seq. 
3:  5,  6— Gen.  2:  6.  7:  21. 
3:  8— Ps.  90:  4. 
3:  10— Ps.  102:  26  seq. 

1  John. 
1:8— Prov.  20:9. 
3:  5— Is.  53:  4. 
3:  12— Gen.  4:  8. 

Jude. 
V.  5 — Num.  14:  35  seq. 
V.  7— Gen.  19. 

V.  11 — Gen.  4:  5  seq.    Num. 
16:  1  seq. 

Apocalypse. 
1:  6— Ex.  19:  6. 
1:  7— Zed).  12:  10. 
1;  14,  15— Dan.  10:5,6.  7:9. 

Ezek.  1:  27.  8:  2. 
2:  14— Num.  25:  1,2.  31:  16. 
2:  20—1  K.  16:  31.  2  K.  9:  7. 
2:  27— Ps.  2:  8,  9. 
3:  7— Is.  22:  22. 
3:  9— Is.  45:  14. 
3:  19— Prov.  3:  11:  12. 
Chap.  iv.  v. — Ezek.  i.  ii.  Is.  vi. 
4:  6— Ezek.  1:  22.  Ex.  24:  10. 
5:  11— Dan.  7:  10. 
6:  8— Ezek.  14:  21.  [Joel  2: 31. 
6:  12— Is.  24:  18—23.    34:  4. 


6:  14— Is.  34:  4. 

6:  15— Is.  2:  19—21. 

6:  16— Hos.  10:  8. 

7:  3— Ezek.  9:  4. 

8:  3.— Lev.  16:  12,  13. 

9:  3— Joel  1:  6  seq.  2:  4  seq. 

9:  l4__comp.  Dan.  10:  13,  20. 

9:  20— Ps.  115:  4.  135:  15. 
10:  2— Ezek.  2:  9,  10. 
10:  .3— Is.  21:  8. 
10:  4— Dan.  8:  26.  12:  4-9. 
10:  9-11— Ez.  2:  8.  3:3. 
11:  4seq.— Zech.  4:  2-14. 
11:  5— 2Khigs  1:9—12. 
11:  6—1  Kings  17: 1.  Ez.  7: 19, 

20. 
11:  7— Dan.  7:  7,  8. 
11:  10— Esth.  9:  19,22. 
11:  15  seq.— Dan.  2:  44.  7:27. 
12:  1  seq.~Mie.4:9, 10.  5:2,3. 
12:  5— Ps.  2:  9. 
12:7— Dan.    10:  13,  21.    11:  1. 

12:  1. 
12:  10— Job  1:  6  seq.    2:  4  seq. 

Zech.  3:  1. 
12:  14— Dan.  7:  25.   12:  7. 

13:  1  seq. — Dan.  7:  3  seq. 

13:  10— Gen.  9:6. 

13:  14— Dan.  3:  1  seq. 

14:8— Isa.  51:9.  Jer.  51:  8. 

14:  10— Ps.  75:  8.    Isa.   51:  22. 
Jer.  25:  15. 

14:  14— Dan.  7:  13. 

14:  15- Joel  3:  13. 

14:  19,  20— Isa.  63:  1  seq. 

15:  3— Ex.  15:  1  seq. 

15:  4— Jer.  10:  7.  Isa.  66:  23. 

15:  8— Ex.  40:  34  seq.  1  Kings 
8:  11.  Isa.  6:  4. 

16:  2  seq. — Ex.  9:  8  seq. 

]6:  9— Dan.  5:  22  seq. 

16:  12— Isa.  II:  15,  16.         [16. 

16:  19— Isa.  51:  22.  Jer.  25: 15 


§  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 


337 


17:  l~Jer.  51:  13. 

19: 

17:  3— Ezek.  8.  3. 

19: 

17:4~Jer.  51:7. 

19: 

17:12     Dan.  7:20. 

17:  15~Isa.  8:7.  Jer.  47:  2. 

20: 

18:2seq.     Isa.21:l    10.  13:21. 

20: 

34: 14  seq.  Jer.  50:  39.  51:8. 

20: 

18:4— Isa.  48:  20.    Jer.  50:8. 

21: 

51:  6,  45. 

21: 

18:6     Jer.50:15,29.Ps.  127:8. 

21: 

18:  7,  8— Isa.  47:  7-9. 

21: 

18:  11  seq. — Ezek.  xxvii.    Isa. 

21: 

xxiii. 

21: 

18:  18     Isa.  34:  10. 

21: 

18:  20— Isa.  44:  23.  49: 13.  Jer. 

21: 

51:  48. 

21: 

18:21— Jer.  51:63,64. 

21: 

18:  22— Isa.  24:  8.  Jer.  7:  34. 

21: 

25:  10. 

22: 

18:  23— Isa.  23:  8. 

19:  2     Deiit.  32:  43. 

22: 

19:  3— Isa.  34:  10. 

22: 

19:4—1   Chron.   16:36.    Neh. 

22: 

5:  13. 

22: 

19:  6— Dan.  2:  44.  7:  27. 

22: 

19:  13— Is.  63:  1  seq. 

22: 

15_Ps.  2:  9.  Isa.  63:  3. 

17,  18— Ezek.  39:  17,  18. 
20— Isa.  30:  33.  Dan.  7:  11,. 
26. 

4— Dan.  7:  9,  22,  27. 
8  seq. — Ezek.  38:  1  seq.. 
11,  12— Dan.  7:9,  10. 
l_Isa.  65:  17.    66:  22. 
2  seq. — Ezek.  xl-xlviii. 
3— Ezek.  37:  27. 
4— Isa.  25:  8.  35:  10. 
5— Isa.  43:  19. 
10— Ezek.  40:  2. 
1 1  seq. — Ezek.  48:  31  seq. 
15— Ezek.  40:  3. 
19  seq.— Isa.  54:11,  12. 
23— Isa.  24:  23.  60:  19. 
24— Isa.  60:  3  seq.  66:  12. 
1   seq. —  Ezek.  47:  1,   12. 
Zech.  14:  8. 
3— Zech.  14:  11. 
5— Isa.  24:  23.  60:  19. 
]0— Dan.  8:  26.  12:  4. 
16— Isa.  11:  1,10. 
17— Isa.  55:  1. 
;  19— Deut.  4:  2.  12:  32. 


Large  as  this  list  is  of  passages  from  the  Old  Testament 
which  are  cited  or  alluded  to  in  the  New,  it  is  far  from  com- 
prehending all  of  this  nature,  which  the  New  Testament  con- 
tains. The  truth  is,  that  there  is  not  a  page,  nor  even  a  par- 
agraph of  any  considerable  length,  belonging  to  the  New 
Testament,  which  does  not  bear  the  impress  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament upon  it.  What  else  is  the  so  called  idiom  of  the  He- 
brew Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  but  an  impression  of  this 
kind  ?  It  is  indeed  true,  that  some  few  peculiarities  in  the 
forms  and  grammatical  structure  of  the  Hebrew  Greek,  led  in 
part  to  the  bestowment  of  this  appellation  upon  it.  But  after 
all,  the  grammatical  departures  from  common  Greek  are  now 
known  and  acknowledged  to  be  but  few ;  while  the  lexical 
ones  arise  mostly  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  (new  thing» 

29 


338  §  18.   APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD- 

demanding  either  new  names,  or  new  meanings  of  old  words, 
to  designate  them),  or  else  from  the  manner  in  which  the 
kindred  Hebrew  verbs,  etc.  are  employed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  the  latter  case  they  help  to  exhibit  the  influence 
which  the  Old  Testament  has  had  upon  the  New  throughout. 

Ko  one  who  has  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  both  Tes- 
taments, in  their  original  languages,  can  possibly  fail  to  re- 
cognize the  numberless  transfers  of  the  spirit  and  the  modes 
of  expression  from  the  Old  to  the  New.  It  is  a  thing  to  be 
felt,  and  not  to  be  adequately  described.  It  occurs  so  often, 
everywhere,  and  in  respect  to  everything,  that  one  would  not 
know  where  to  begin,  or  where  to  end,  such  a  description. 
No  one  must  imagine,  that  the  list  of  quotations  or  cases  of 
allusion  above  conveys  to  him  any  really  adequate  view  of 
the  subject.  The  truth  is,  that  it  is  no  more  than  the  mere 
beginning  of  such  a  view.  But  it  presents  to  every  reader, 
whether  learned  or  unlearned,  what  is  palpable  and  undenia- 
ble, and  what  must  serve  to  convince  a  candid  mind,  that  the 
N,  Test,  writers  everywhere  lean  upon,  or  stand  closely  con- 
nected with,  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament. 

It  may  be  proper  to  remark,  in  order  to  prevent  any  mis- 
understanding on  the  part  of  the  reader,  that  oftentimes  he 
will  find  only  some  particular  part  of  a  verse  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament which  is  referred  to — some  expression  in  that  verse — 
the  object  of  comparison  between  the  New  Testament  and 
the  Old :  and  so  in  respect  to  verses  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  I  have  taken  as  being  related  to  expressions  in  the 
New.  If  he  does  not  at  once  see  the  point  of  comparison, 
(which  may  sometimes  happen),  let  him  not  forthwith  con- 
clude that  there  is  none.  Some  mistakes  I  may  have  made, 
in  recording  so  many  quotations  ;  for  in  a  work  so  laborious 
as  such  a  comparison,  and  trying  to  the  patience,  who  might 
not  make  mistakes  ?  It  may  be,  that  in  some  cases  where  I 
have  supposed  a  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  it  might  not 
have  been  so  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  There  is  room,  in 
a  few  cases,  for  diflerence  of  opinion  with  regard  to  such  a 
matter.     But,  on  the  whole,  I  hope  and  trust  the  list  will  be 


§  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD.     339 

found  to  hd  as  accurate  as  could  be  reasonably  demanded. 
Possibly  there  are  a  few  instances,  that  should  be  struck  from 
it ;  but  should  this  be  done,  I  have  only  to  say,  that  ifAere  are 
hundreds  of  expressions  and  thoughts,  in  the  New  Testament^ 
modelled  after  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  I  have  made  no 
reference.  I  have  even  stricken  out  not  a  few  of  Knapp's 
list  of  quotations,  at  the  end  of  his  Greek  Testament,  because 
I  wished  to  retain  none  which  did  not  seem  to  be  palpable. 

Among  the  several  writers  of  the  Gospels,  the  reader  will 
perceive  that  there  is  not  much  difference  in  regard  to  the 
frequency  of  resort  to  the  Old  Testament,  if  one  takes  into 
view  the  comparative  length  of  their  productions.  The  book 
of  Acts,  the  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Hebrews,  I. 
Peter,  and  the  Apocalypse,  abound  most  in  references  to  the 
Old  Testament.  Above  all  is  the  Apocalypse  the  most  re- 
markable for  this.  While  John  has  not  made,  in  this  book,  a 
single  quotation  in  the  usual  way  of  express  appeal,  he  has, 
in  more  than  one  hundred  cases,  beyond  all  doubt  drawn  his 
modes  of  expression  and  thought  from  the  O.  Test.  Scrip- 
tures, using  every  part  of  them  indiscriminately,  but  mostly 
the  books  of  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  Zechariah.  Near- 
ly one  fifth  part  of  all  the  references,  in  the  New  Testament 
to  the  ancient  Scriptures,  belong  to  the  Apocalypse.  Thus 
much  in  the  way  of  explanation. 

After  this  general  view  of  the  subject,  I  proceed  to  make  a 
few  special  remarks  on  the  list  above  exhibited. 

(1)  Many  of  the  passages  here  noted,  in  the  same  manner 
as  those  before  cited  at  length,  have  respect  to  Old  Testament 
prophecies  which  are  declared  to  have  been  fulfilled.  An  in- 
telHgent  reader  will  easily  perceive,  that  this  statement  covers 
much  ground.  The  New  Testament  writers  make  use  of  the 
formula  Iva  Tzhjocod-rj  (that  it  might  be  fidjilled,  or  so  that  it 
was  fid  filed),  to  a  wide  extent.  Not  only  predictions,  in  the 
proper  and  limited  sense  of  the  word,  are  said  to  be  fulfilled, 
but  also  in  cases  where  the  type  is  answered  by  the  appear- 
ance of  the  antitype,  (e.  g.  Christ  our  passover-lamb)  ;  and 
also  in  cases  where  the  event  related  in  the  New  Testament 


340     §  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

corresponds  closely  to  tlie  leading  features  of  similar  events 
related  in  the  Old  Testament.  For  an  example  of  the  last, 
we  may  appeal  to  Matt.  2:  15  where  the  statement  is,  that 
Jesus  was  carried  aV^^ay  to  Egypt,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding 
the  massacre  at  Bethlehem,  in  order  that  the  Scripture  might 
be  fulfilled  which  saith :  "  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my 
Son."  Now  if  we  turn  to  Hosea  11:  1  (the  passage  here 
cited),  we  find  it  to  run  thus :  "  When  Israel  was  a  child, 
then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my  soji  out  of  Egypt."  Now 
here  is  a  mere  historical  declaration  respecting  a  past  event, 
and  nothing  at  all  of  prediction  in  the  proper  sense.  The 
TiX^ocoGig,  in  this  case,  consists  in  the  striking  points  of  resem- 
blance between  the  exile  in  Egypt  and  the  deliverance  from 
it,  as  it  respects  both  of  the  parties  in  view.  And  so,  of 
many  other  texts  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted,  that  more  narrow  and  confined 
views  of  this  subject,  (by  which  every  fulfilment,  nh'jQcoaig, 
was  made  to  correspond  with  some  real  and  direct  prediction), 
should  have  given  occasion  to  boundless  allegorizing,  and  to 
the  making  out  of  a  double  sense  for  the  words  of  the  ancient 
Scriptures,  and  to  helping  out  the  construction  of  supposed 
predictions,  contained  in  simple  historical  narration,  by  in- 
venting a  vnovoia  or  occult  sense  for  the  words  of  the  narration. 
More  enlarged  views  of  the.  habitude  of  the  Jews,  in  regard 
to  the  use  which  they  made  of  the  Old  Testament,  specially 
in  respect  to  what  they  called  ?i,  fulfilment  of  it,  might  have 
prevented  all  this.  But  now  it  will  be  a  long  time,  (so  deep 
has  the  infection  taken  root),  before  the  malady  can  be  cured. 
But  on  this  I  cannot  dwell. 

(2)  In  every  part  of  the  New  Testament,  facts  related  in 
the  Old  Testament  history  are  appealed  to  ;  not  common  and 
civil  occurrences  only,  but  miraculous  ones.  Such  are  the 
flood,  the  destruction  of  Sodom,  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea, 
the  manna  of  the  desert,  the  feats  of  Samson,  the  miracles 
of  Elijah  and  Elisha  and  others,  the  swallowing  up  of  Jonah 
by  the  whale,  the  deliverance  of  Shadrach  and  IMeshach  and 
Abednego  from  the  fiery  furnace,  the  safety  of  Daniel  in  the 


§  18.    APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD.  341 

lions'  den,  and  other  things  of  the  like  extraordinary  nature. 
In  a  word,  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  history,  with  all 
its  extraordinary  narrations,  and  all  the  miraculous  events 
which  many  of  them  imply,  are  everywhere  appealed  to,  and 
are  regarded  by  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  as  absolute  ver- 
ities. 

(3)  Principles  and  precepts  inculcated  by  the  gospel  are 
everywhere  established,  or  enforced,  or  illustrated,  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  Old  Testament.  There  is  a  great  variety  here 
in  the  method  of  appeal,  according  to  the  object  which  the 
writer  has  in  view.  Sometimes  it  is  made  simply  on  the 
ground  of  the  authority/  which  is  conceded  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Sometimes  merely  to  compare  ancient  with  recent 
things,  and  repel  any  accusation  of  novelty.  Sometimes 
merely  to  cast  light  on  anything  which  may  seem  to  be  ob- 
scure. But  in  whatever  way  the  appeal  is  made,  there  is  still 
at  the  basis  of  it  the  idea  of  a  standard  authority — a  tribunal 
before  which  causes  are  to  be  judged — in  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament.  "  All  Scripture  is  inspired  of  God,"  is 
not  a  sentiment  of  Paul  only,  but  it  rules  and  reigns  in  every 
part  and  parcel  of  the  New  Testament. 

(4)  In  regard  to  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  notwithstand- 
ing the  writer  has  undertaken  to  show  the  superiority  of  the 
Gospel  over  the  Law,  the  divine  origin  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  and  institutions  is  as  fully  acknowledged  as  in 
other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  writer  builds  as 
much  upon  it.  He  has  laboured  everywhere  to  show,  that 
the  Jewish  law  and  ritual  were  ordained,  on  the  part  of 
heaven,  as  introductory  to  the  Christian  dispensation.  The 
significance  and  importance  of  the  ritual  is  confined  mainly  to 
this.  "  The  law  was  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come"  So 
that,  whether  the  author  was  Paul,  or  some  other  person,  it  is 
certain  that  here  may  be  found  the  same  opinion  which  Paul 
expressed,  when  he  said :  "  The  Law  is  our  school-master,  to 
bring  us  to  Christ."  Why  should  it  be  any  more  inconsis- 
tent for  the  Godhead  to  make  arrangements  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  gospel,  by  a  series  of  preparatory  measures,  than 

29* 


342     §  18.  APPEALS  OF  NEW  TEST.  TO  THE  OLD. 

it  is  to  bring  about  many  other  things,  and  even  extraordina- 
ry ones,  in  the  hke  way?  Our  present  life  itself  is  but  a 
preparatory  arrangement  for  another. 

(5)   There  is  something  in  the  closing  scene  of  Jesus'  life, 
which  is  adapted  strongly  to  impress  our  minds  with  the  idea, 
that  he  gave  the  fullest  credence  and   sanction  to  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.     All  the  prominent  circumstances  of 
his  sufferings  and  death  are  so  arranged,  that  every  one  of 
them  is  the  fulfilment  of  some  portions  of  the  ancient  Scriptures. 
When  he  was   disrobed,  and  the  soldiers  disputed  about  the 
possession  of  his  garments,   they  cast  lots  to  determine  to 
whom  the  seamless  coat  should  belong ;  and  all  this  in  fulfil- 
ment, as  the  evangelist  declares  (John  19:  24),  of  the  Scrip- 
ture in  Ps.  22:  18.     When  his  agony  on  the  cross  created  an 
intense  thirst,  he  disclosed  this  to  the  bystanders  in  order  that 
the    Scripture  might  be  fulfilled   (Ps.  69:  21)  which  saith : 
"  They  gave  me   gall  for   my  meat,  and  in  my  thirst  they 
gave  me  vinegar  to  drink ;"  John  19:  28  seq.     The  vinegar 
that  was  given  him  was  mingled  with  gall.  Matt.  27:  34.  The 
demeanor  of  the  populace  and  the  priests,  wagging  their  heads 
and  saying :  "He  trusted  in  God  ;  let  him  deliver  him  now, 
if  he  will  have  him,"  is  all  specifically  described  in  Ps.  22: 
7,  8.     When  agony  beyond  endurance  forced  from  the  expir- 
ing Saviour  the  bitter  cry  :  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me  ?"  the  words  were  chosen  from  the  twenty-se- 
cond Psalm  (v.  1),  which  contains  a  prophecy  respecting  his 
sufferings  and  death  so  strikingly  descriptive  and  historical.  His 
last  dying  breath  came  forth  with  the  voice  of  prayer:  "Father, 
into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit ;"  words  taken  from  Ps. 
31:  5.     The  soldiers,  who  brake  the  limbs  of  the  malefactors 
that  were  crucified  with  Jesus,  refrained  from  breaking  his, 
seeing  that  he  was  already  dead ;  and  all  this  (John  19:  36) 
in  accordance  with  tliB  symbolic  and  prophetic  passover-lamb, 
not  a  bone  of  which  was  to  be  broken,  Ex.  12:  46.     One  of 
the  soldiers  pierced  his  side  with  a  spear  (John  19:  34  seq.), 
and  this  was  in  fulfilment  of  a  passage  of  Scripture  in  Zech- 
firiah  (12:  10),  which  says  :  *'  They  shall  look  on  him  whom 


§  19.   RESULT.  343 

they  have  pierced."  And  can  the  Evangelists  and  the  Sa- 
viour thus  appeal  to  the  Scripture  in  confirmation  and  illus- 
tration of  all  these  circumstances,  and  yet  the  Scripture  con- 
tain no  predictions  respecting  Christ,  and  no  declarations  on 
which  we  can  rely  ?  Can  the  Saviour  himself,  in  his  highest 
agony,  and  with  his  expiring  breath,  have  expressed  his  feel- 
ings by  quoting  the  language  of  a  book  unworthy  of  our  cre- 
dence and  our  confidence  ? — But  I  desist  lest  I  should  be 
thought  to  appeal  more  to  feeling  than  to  argument.  Certain 
it  is,  that  no  book  could  be  thus  honoured  by  Jesus,  in  which 
he  had  not  the  highest  and  most  entire  confidence. 


'&" 


§  ]  9.  Result. 

And  now,  what  shall  we  say  to  these  things  ?  The  New 
Testament  not  only  appeals  to  the  Old  in  the  way  of  illustra- 
tion, and  for  the  sake  of  comparison,  but  everywhere  appeals 
to  it  as  the  word  of  God,  as  the  testimony  of  his  Holy  Spirit, 
as  the  oracles  of  his  prophets,  as  the  rule  of  life,  as  the  foun- 
dation of  the  spiritual  building  which  Christ  came  to  erect. 
Its  predictions,  its  precepts,  its  narrations,  are  interwoven  with 
every  part  of  what  apostles  and  evangelists  have  written.  It 
is  incorporated  with  the  very  material  of  religious  thought,  in 
the  minds  of  all  the  N.  Test,  writers.  Even  when  they  do  not 
quote,  and  do  not  seem,  as  the  hasty  reader  might  suppose, 
at  all  to  allude  to  the  Old  Testament,  its  ideas  and  its  idioms 
are  incorporated  with  all  their  productions.  In  the  Apoca- 
lypse, John  has  not  made  or\Q  formal  quotation  of  Scripture; 
yet  no  book  of  the  New  Testament,  as  has  already  been  re- 
marked, so  abounds  in  and  overflows  with  the  spirit  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  this  book.  The  writer  had,  if  I  may  be  al- 
lowed the  expression,  steeped  himself  in  the  ancient  Scrip- 
tures, until  he  was  thoroughly  imbued  with  them.  I  know 
not  how  I  can  better  express  my  views  of  the  style  of  his  pro- 
duction, than  in  this  way.  And  so  it  is,  indeed,  with  all  the 
evangelists,  with  Paul,  with  Peter,  and  with  James.  It  is 
impossible  to  conceal  this,  or  withdraw  it  from  sight.     It  is  in 


344  §  19.   RESULT. 

vain  to  deny  it  before  any  candid  reader.  The  most  sophis- 
ticated reasoning  cannot  even  make  out  an  ingenious  case  to 
the  contrary. 

What  shall  we  say  then  ?  What  can  we  say  less  than  what 
the  Saviour  himself  said  to  the  Jews  ?  "  Had  ye  believed  Mo- 
ses, ye  would  have  believed  me  ;  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if 
ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words  ?" 
John  5:  46,  47.  It  is  in  vain  to  make  the  effort  to  avoid  this. 
The  expedient  to  which  Mr.  Norton  resorts,  in  substituting 
spohe  for  wrote,  and  ivords  for  writings,  (see  above,  p.  10),  is 
one  which  shows  the  desperate  nature  of  the  cause  which  he 
is  labouring  to  defend.  On  this  ground,  no  declaration  of 
Scripture  anywhere,  in  any  passage,  on  any  subject,  is  exempt 
from  arbitrary  alteration,  at  the  will  and  pleasure  of  every 
reader.  Of  course,  the  Scripture  is  not  the  rule  of  our  faith, 
but  our  faith  is  the  rule  of  Scripture.  Much  more  ingenuous 
are  those  who  come  out  at  once  and  say  :  "  The  light  within 
us  is  more  perfect  than  the  light  without  us,  and  much  easier 
seen  and  apprehended ;  we  know  of  no  other  supreme  rule 
but  this.  Scripture  itself  must  be  tried  by  this  test ;  and  we 
accord  to  it  our  respect  and  regard  only  so  far  as  we  deem  that 
its  decisions  agree  with  our  own."  They  say  this  openly ; 
while  Mr.  Norton  only  acts  it,  but  will  not  venture  to  say  it. 

Why  may  we  not  ask,  then,  in  the  words  of  Jesus  :  "  If  ye 
believe  not  Moses'  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  the  words 
of  him  concerning  whom  Moses  wrote  ?"  He  has  decided 
that  this  cannot  be.  The  authority  of  this  decision  rests  not 
on  my  reasonings,  but  on  his  own  words.  He  has  said  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  that  the  sum  of  the  whole  is,  that 
we  should  "  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  our  neigh- 
bor as  ourselves,"  Matt.  22:  37  seq.  "  On  these  two  com- 
mandments," moreover,  for  such  are  his  words,  "  hang  all  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  ;"  Matt.  22:  40.  That  is,  this  is  the 
very  sum  and  substance  of  the  Old  Testament.  And  are 
these  commands,  then,  to  be  regarded  as  nullities  ?  Are  these 
in  their  nature  repealable  ?  Can  they  be  set  aside  ?  If  not, 
then  Jesus  has  sanctioned  the  books  which  contain  them.     If 


§  19.  RESULT.  345 

you  deny  this,  then  you  charge  him  with  prevarication,  or 
with  ignorance.  I  cannot  beheve  him  to  be  impeachable  on 
either  ground. 

Did  Jesus  suspect  or  call  in  question  the  moral  efficacy  or 
influence  of  these  writings  ?  Let  us  listen  to  him,  in  the  para- 
ble of  Lazarus.  The  rich  man  in  hell  requests  father  Abra- 
ham that  he  would  send  Lazarus  to  his  five  brethren  yet  liv- 
ing, to  warn  them,  so  that  they  might  not  come  into  that  place 
of  torment.  Abraham's  reply  is :  "  They  have  Moses  and 
the  prophets  ;  let  them  hear  them."  The  rich  man  still  urges 
his  request :  "  Nay,"  says  he,  "  but  if  one  went  unto  them 
from  the  dead,  they  would  repent."  And  what  does  the  father 
of  the  faithful,  amid  the  glories  of  the  upper  world  where  no 
darkness  is,  answer  ?  He  says :  "  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose 
from  the  dead  ;"  Luke  16:  23  seq.  The  Old  Test.  Scriptures, 
in  the  estimation  of  Jesus,  (for  surely  he  does  not  put  words 
into  Abraham's  mouth  which  he  would  not  adopt  as  his  own), 
were  more  efficient  in  the  moral  instruction  and  conviction 
and  conversion  of  men,  than  the  rising  of  one  from  the  dead 
would  be,  who  should  lay  before  them  all  the  joys  of  the  bles- 
sed and  the  torments  of  the  damned. 

Shall  this  book,  then,  be  spurned  away,  and  treated  as  a 
collection  of  fables,  of  barbarous  maxims,  and  of  trifling  ritual 
ordinances  ?  This  is  the  question.  It  is  this  very  question 
which  lies  between  the  declarations  of  the  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  skepticism  of  so  called  Ra- 
tionalists on  the  other.  Whom  shall  we  believe  ?  There  is 
no  compromise  in  this  case.  He  that  is  not  for  Christ  is  as- 
suredly against  him.  He  who  rejects  his  authority  on  this 
point,  virtually  rejects  it  on  all  others.  Christ  was  either  in 
the  right  or  in  the  wrong,  as  to  the  estimate  which  he  put  up- 
on the  Old  Testament.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  what  that 
estimate  was,  after  the  evidence  which  has  come  before  us. 
If  he  was  in  the  right,  then  is  the  Old  Testament  a  book  of 
divine  authority — the  ancient  revelation  of  God.  If  he  was 
in  the  wrong,  then  we  can  put  no  confidence  in  his  teaching. 


346  §20.  CONCLUSION. 

He  might  be  in  the  wrong,  with  respect  to  every  command 
and  opinion  which  he  gave  ;  and  of  consequence  the  whole 
system  of  Christianity  is  nothing  more  than  an  airy  figure 
moving  in  the  mirage,  or  one  which  floats  along  upon  the 
splendid  mists  which  surround  it. 

§  20.   Conclusion. 

The  history  of  the  Canon,  from  its  inceptive  state  down  to 
its  completion,  has  been  traced.  We  have  seen,  that  when 
testimony  and  historical  circumstances  are  fully  taken  into 
view,  there  is  no  good  reason  to  doubt,  that  the  scriptural  ca- 
non was  completed  during  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  i.  e.  dur- 
ing the  time  of  Malachi,  the  last  of  the  prophets.  Somewhat 
more  than  400  years  old,  then,  were  all  the  books  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  of  his  apostles. 
The  division  of  those  books,  with  appropriate  names  for  each 
portion,  we  can  trace  to  nearly  200  years  B.  C,  if  not  still 
higher.  That  division  must  have  been  definite  and  well  known. 
No  new  books  could  be  added,  after  it  was  completed,  with- 
out the  knowledge  and  concurrence  of  at  least  the  priesthood 
among  the  Jews.  That  state  of  parties — Pharisee  and  Sad- 
ducee — who  differed  on  the  very  point  of  exclusive  Scripture 
authority,  rendered  it  impossible  for  either  party  to  augment 
or  diminish  the  books  of  Scripture.  The  state  of  party  can 
be  traced  back  to  a  time  beyond  the  period  of  the  Maccabees, 
and  probably  the  origin  of  it  should  be  dated  at  a  period  not 
long  after  the  closing  of  the  Canon.  We  are  of  necessity 
compelled  to  admit,  that  the  sacred  books  among  the  Jews 
have  been  unchangeable  since  that  period.  Sirachides,  Philo, 
Josephus,  the  New  Test,  writers,  know  of  no  other  scriptural 
books  than  those  which  we  now  have.  The  appeal  to  such 
books,  in  all  their  writings,  is  limited  to  these  ;  for  when  Jo- 
sephus comes  to  later  history  than  what  they  contain,  he  tells 
us  expressly,  that  the  other  books  to  which  he  appeals  are 
entirely  of  a  different  character  and  credit  from  those  which  be- 
long to  the  Old  Test.  Scriptures. 


§  20.  CONCLUSION.  347 

Besides,  Josephus  has  told  us  how  many  books  there  were 
in  the  Hebrew  Canon.  We  have  traced  these  in  quotations 
made  by  him,  and  Philo,  and  Sirachides,  and  the  New  Test. 
writers ;  and  with  still  more  certainty  in  the  lists  of  individ- 
ual books,  by  Melito,  Origen,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Hilary, 
Athanasius,  Jerome,  Rufinus,  the  Talmud,  and  others.  We 
find  them  to  accord  with  our  present  Old  Testament.  There 
cannot  be  any  doubt  left,  then,  that  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's 
time  did  receive  and  regard  these  books  as  of  divine  origin. 
And  inasmuch  as  Christ  and  his  apostles  have  never  inti- 
mated directly  or  indirectly,  that  the  Jews  were  in  an  error 
with  regard  to  this  subject,  what  grounds  have  we  for  sup- 
posing that  they  were  ?  Christ  and  his  apostles  everywhere 
quote,  appeal  to,  and  use  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  as  of  divine 
and  paramount  authority  and  obligation. 

What  then  of  him  who  rejects  them  as  a  part  of  our  pre- 
sent Scriptures  ?  He  follows  not  the  example  of  Christ,  or 
of  his  apostles.  Nay  more.  He  acts  in  direct  opposition  to 
their  authority  and  example.  In  so  doing,  as  far  as  in  him 
lies,  he  repeals  or  abrogates  the  decisions  of  the  Gospel. 
Mr.  Norton  has  averred  (p.  4  above),  that  no  enlightened 
person  can  be  a  Christian,  and  admit  the  claims  made  in  be- 
half of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  He  has  given  his  reasons  for 
such  an  opinion.  I  have  come  to  a  very  different  conclusion, 
viz.,  that  no  enlightened  person  can  well  be  deemed  a  Chris- 
tian, who  rejects  the  claims  made  in  behalf  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. I  have  given  my  reasons  for  it.  If  obedience  and 
submission  to  the  decisions  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  be  an 
essential  ingredient  of  Christianity,  then  is  my  conclusion  in- 
evitable, in  case  I  have  duly  shown  that  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles did  receive  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  as  divine  and 
authoritative.  If  this  be  not  fully  shown,  then  must  I  despair 
of  ever  seeing  any  point  established  in  sacred  criticism,  either 
in  respect  to  facts  or  opinions.  There  is  not  a  circumstance 
in  all  the  history  of  true  religion,  appertaining  to  ancient 
times,  that  is  capable  of  more  absolute  demonstration  than 
this. 


348  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

I  have  now  done  this  part  of  my  work,  and  must  commit 
the  whole  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader.  I  ask  neither  more 
nor  less  of  him,  than  to  scan  the  whole  process  of  proof  with  a 
scrutinizing  eye  ;  to  weigh  well  the  historical  evidence,  which 
we  must  receive,  or  else  reject  all  ancient  testimony ;  and 
then  to  decide  with  candour,  and  without  prejudice  or  partial- 
ity. I  have  a  right  to  ask  for  so  much,  in  respect  to  such  a 
cause.  It  is  no  hght  matter  what  judgment  we  form  on  a 
subject  of  such  high  and  holy  import  as  this.  It  is  a  case  in 
which  direct  demand  is  made  upon  us  for  submission  and  de- 
ference to  Christ  and  his  apostles  ;  and  we  cannot  thrust  it 
aside.  The  simple  and  ultimate  question  is  :  Ai^e  we  to  ad- 
mit their  authority  and  example,  or  to  gainsay  the  one,  and 
shun  an  imitation  of  the  other  ? 

§  21.  RemarJcs  in  regard  to  the  conscientious  scruples  of  those 
who  have  doubts  and  difficulties  as  to  the  authenticity  of 
some  Old  Testament  Boohs. 

It  is  one  thing  to  reject  the  Old  Testament  en  masse,  with- 
out paying  any  deference  to  the  declarations  and  opinions  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles ;  it  is  another  and  very  different  one 
merely  to  doubt  whether  some  two  or  three  books  of  our  pre- 
sent Old  Testament  belong  properly  to  the  Canon,  or  did  be- 
long to  it  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour.  The  first  class  reject 
it  on  account  of  the  many  and  (as  they  allege)  incredible  mi- 
racles which  it  relates ;  on  account  of  the  imperfection  and 
contradictions  and  incongruities  to  be  found  in  its  history ; 
because  of  the  burdensome  and  trivial  rites  and  ceremonies 
which  it  enjoins  ;  because  of  the  very  imperfect  morality  in 
respect  to  some  important  matters  which  it  inculcates ;  and 
because  of  the  violations  of  the  law  of  love  which  it  com- 
mands, and  of  the  cruelty  and  spirit  of  revenge  which  it 
breathes  forth.  They  find  no  other  evidence  of  prediction, 
even  in  the  leading  prophets,  than  the  shrewd  conjectures  of 
sagacious  men  about  the  future,  or  the  patriotic  hopes  and  ex- 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      349 

pectations  which  are  breathed  forth  in  the  language  of  impas- 
sioned poetry.  The  Old  Testament  is,  with  them,  merely  an 
undistinguishing  Collectcmeum  of  the  remains  of  Jewish  lite- 
rature down  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  styled  sa- 
cred or  holy  because  the  subject  of  holy  things  so  often  comes 
into  view,  and  because  the  pragmatism*  of  the  writers  so  of- 
ten introduces  the  providence  and  decrees  of  the  Godhead,  in 
order  to  account  for  this  and  that  event.  And  as  to  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  they  allege  that  everything  was  done  in  the 
way  of  accommodation  to  Jewish  views  and  feelings.  These 
teachers  did  not  mean  to  excite  the  jealousy  or  hatred  of  the 
Jews,  by  contradicting  or  opposing  any  of  their  capricious  no- 
tions or  superstitious  conceits.  Hence  they  often  acted  and 
spoke  Kara  avyAatd^aaiv,  or  in  the  way  of  accommodation 
or  condescension  to  their  countrymen.  And  the  notions  of 
the  latter  about  the  Scriptures  were  of  the  extreme  kind,  so 
that  the  former  felt  obliged  to  spare  the  mention  of  those 
things  respecting  these  books,  which  would  wound  the  feel- 
ings of  the  Jews. 

To  this  class  principally  the  preceding  pages  have  been 
devoted.  I  cannot  quit  my  subject,  however,  without  saying 
a  few  things  to  the  second  class,  i.  e.  to  those  who  only  doubt 
of  some  two  or  three  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  believe 
in  the  canonical  authority  of  the  rest,  and  rely  upon  the  ordi- 
nary considerations  that  are  alleged  in  favour  of  it. 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  say,  that  this  latter  class  may 
consist  not  only  of  sincere  and  earnest  inquirers,  but,  as  I 
would  hope  and  trust,  of  sincere  Christians.  Enlightened 
ones  they  may  also  be,  in  respect  to  most  other  subjects  of  a 
rehgious  nature  ;  but  in  regard  to  this,  I  must  think  that  they 
have  taken  but  partial  views  of  the  matter. 

If  the  Old  Testament  stands  justly  chargeable  with  all  the 
things  which  are  objected  to  it,  by  the  first  class  above  named, 

*  I  use  this  word  in  the  usual  German  critical  sense.  Pragmatism, 
in  a  historian,  would  be  any  undertaking  to  account  for  certain  facts. 
His  simple  business  as  a  historian  is  to  relate  facts ;  and  so  pragmatism 
and  }yraymatic,  thus  employed,  become  very  significant. 

30 


350  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

then  indeed  we  might  safely  conclude  that  it  is  not  a  divine 
book.  If  Christ  and  the  apostles  looked  on  the  Hebrew- 
Scriptures  in  that  light  in  which  some  recent  critics  place 
them,  how  could  they  possibly  refrain  from  advertising  the 
Jews  of  the  great  error  and  superstition  which  they  fostered  ? 
As  public  teachers,  bound  to  be  faithful  and  thorough,  how 
could  they  acquiesce  in  such  views  of  a  book  that  contains,  if 
we  may  trust  Mr.  Norton  and  others,  many  things  unworthy 
of  God,  and  subversive  of  his  justice,  his  equity,  and  his  com- 
passion, not  to  speak  of  incongruities,  and  trifling  rites  and 
ceremonies.  Above  all,  how  could  Jesus,  and  Paul,  and  Pe- 
ter, and  John,  leave  the  Christian  church  to  feel  under  obliga- 
tion to  hold  such  a  book  as  the  Old  Testament  sacred,  even 
after  they  had  renounced  all  allegiance  to  the  rites  and  forms 
of  the  Mosaic  Law  ?  Certain  it  is,  that  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles combatted  and  refuted  many  of  the  Jewish  notions,  both 
of  a  doctrinal  and  a  practical  nature.  How  came  they  to 
spare  this  substantial  and  fundamental  error,  (if  it  be  an 
error),  not  only  without  a  word  of  correction  and  admonition, 
but  even  to  do  as  the  Jews  did  in  respect  to  their  Scriptures, 
i.  e.  to  appeal  to  them  as  divine  and  authoritative,  and  thus 
to  encourage  and  persuade  all  their  disciples  to  follow  their 
example  ? 

For  myself  I  see  no  satisfactory  way  in  which  these  ques- 
tions can  be  answered.  I  must  put  them  to  the  minds  and 
consciences  of  all  who  profess  to  reverence  Christianity  as  a 
religion  from  God,  and  I  must  leave  them  to  make  out  an 
answer  as  best  they  may. 

But  to  the  scruples  of  some  minds  about  this  or  that  par- 
ticular book — to  doubts  whether  this  or  that  was  a  part  of  the 
Canon  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  the  apostles — while,  at  the 
same  time  there  is  a  ready  deference  to  their  authority  in  all 
cases  where  persons  in  this  state  can  see  it  to  be  clearly 
shown,  it  would  be  unreasonable  and  disrespectful  not  to  pay 
some  ready  and  cheerful  attention.  Luther  rejected  the  epis- 
tle of  James  and  the  Apocalypse  from  his  canon,  as  we  have 
seen  above ;  but  Luther  had  no  doubt  of  the  divine  authority 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      351 

'of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  with  this  exception.  He 
also  admitted  the  Old  Testament  to  the  same  rank.  Now 
some  other  Christian,  in  the  like  spirit,  may  admit  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms  ;  but  he  might  possibly  re- 
ject Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Canticles ;  or  at  least  he  might 
deem  it  doubtful  whether  these  books  ought  to  be  ranked 
with  those.  Of  such  an  one  I  could  easily  say  that  I  regard- 
ed him  as  a  Christian,  if  his  demeanor  and  his  principles  in 
other  respects  were  such  as  become  this  character.  If  he 
had  no  dark  spirit  of  skepticism  as  to  the  books  of  Scripture 
in  general,  or  as  to  revelation  in  general,  but  accorded  to  it  a 
sincere  and  hearty  belief,  then  I  could  easily  suppose,  that 
his  head  was  rather  in  fault  than  his  heart,  (if  indeed  he  be 
in  fault),  and  I  should  feel  it  my  duty  rather  to  labour  to  en- 
lighten his  mind,  than  to  reprove  the  state  of  his  feelings. 

With  such  I  suppose  myself,  at  present,  to  be  concerned; 
and  to  them  I  must  take  the  liberty  to  address  a  few  conside- 
rations. 

That  there  are  peculiar  difficulties  in  respect  to  the  books 
just  named,  I  confess  myself  often  to  have  felt,  as  well  as 
they.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  it,  how  the  book  of  Esther 
could  be  written  even  by  a  pious  Jew  who  was  uninspired, 
and  yet  this  book  relate  events  of  a  most  surprising  nature — 
deliverances  of  the  most  extraordinary  kind — without  one  re- 
cognition of  the  hand  of  Providence  here,  or  even  once  men- 
tioning the  name  of  God.  This  is  almost  the  only  book  in  the 
Old  Testament,  which  has  completely  escaped  the  charge  by 
the  Neologists  q^  pragmatism  on  the  part  of  the  writer.  And 
besides  this,  some  of  the  circumstances  related  in  it  are  cer- 
tainly peculiar.  I  have  already  mentioned  them,  (p.  171  seq.) 
but  I  must  beg  leave  again  to  bring  some  of  them  into  view, 
in  the  present  connection.  That  75,000  Persians  should  have 
been  killed  by  the  Jews  in  one  day,  apparently  without  any 
loss  of  life  on  their  part,  (Esth.  9:  16)  ;  that  Haman  should 
by  proclamation  diffused  all  over  the  kingdom,  give  them 
nearly  a  year's  notice  of  the  attack  to  be  made  upon  them, 
(Esth.  3:  7  seq.)  ;  appeal's,  I  acknowledge,  to  present  some 


352  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

historical  paradoxes  of  no  easy  and  ready  solution.  And  in 
view  of  such  matters,  it  would  be  natural  for  the  doubters  to 
whom  I  now  refer,  to  put  back  the  question  upon  me :  How 
do  you  satisfy  your  own  mind,  that  these  things  do  not  en- 
title us  to  reject  the  book  as  not  canonical  ? 

I  feel  bound  to  meet  this  question,  and  am  ready  to  do  it, 
so  far  as  I  may  be  able. 

Let  me  say  then,  first  of  all,  that  I  do  not  regard  the  ques- 
tion respecting  the  canonical  authority  of  this  book,  in  the 
same  light,  in  all  respects,  as  I  should  the  question  whether 
the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  or  Isaiah,  is  canonical.  The 
book  of  Esther  teaches  us  no  doctrine,  in  a  direct  way  ;  it 
gives  us  eT?:pressly  no  moral  precepts.  If  it  were  struck  out 
of  the  Canon  to-day,  not  a  single  doctrine  or  ethical  principle 
would  be  changed,  or  be  found  lacking.  It  is  in  vain  to  say, 
that  all  the  books  of  Scripture  are  alike,  or  are  alike  profita- 
ble to  us,  although  they  may  all  be  inspired.  The  exegesis 
that  can  draw  from  1  Chron.  i — ix. — which  is  a  register  of 
names  in  a  series  of  genealogies ;  or  from  Ezra  ii.  and  Neh. 
vii.  (lists  of  those  who  returned  from  the  captivity)  ;  as  much 
instruction  and  edification  as  from  the  ten  commandments,  or 
from  the  history  of  the  creation,  or  from  many  of  the  Psalms, 
or  the  Proverbs,  or  the  prophecies,  may  be  consistent  with 
piety,  and  sometimes  may  even  spring  from  excessive  notions 
about  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  peculiarly  holy 
nature  of  all  its  books.  But  intellect  and  reason  never  can 
find  any  satisfaction  in  such  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
if  indeed  it  may  be  called  interpretation,  and  not  caricature. 
The  Bible  is  a  book  that,  we  may  take  it  for  granted,  was 
made  to  satisfy  the  intellect  and  enlightened  reason,  as  well  as 
devotional  feeling.  It  is  only  when  we  misconceive  of  the 
design  and  object  of  any  particular  part  of  it,  that  it  fails  to 
satisfy  the  intellectual  and  rational  demands  of  our  nature. 

I  set  it  down  as  certain,  that  inasmuch  as  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation itself  was  one  of  types  and  shadows — a  preparation 
for  good  things  to  come — a  schoolmaster  to  lead  us  unto 
Christ — and  inasmuch  as  all  that  was  in  its  nature  eremonial, 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      353 

ritual,  temporary,  appropriate  only  to  the  Jews  as  one  and 
a  peculiar  nation,  was  to  be  superseded  and  abolished  when 
Christ  should  come,  so  there  might  be  parts,  even  many  parts, 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  would  cease  to  have  any  more 
immediate  importance  and  value,  whenever  a  Christian  reve- 
lation, by  which  the  will  of  God  is  perfectly  made  known, 
should  supervene.  It  has  supervened ;  and  that  which  once 
was  perfectly  adapted  to  the  exigencies  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  (although  "  a  ministration  of  condemnation")  was  still  glo- 
rious (2  Cor.  3:  9),  "  has  now  no  glory  by  reason  of  the  glory 
that  excelleth"  (v.  10),  i.  e.  by  reason  of  the  Gospel. 

But  be  it  so,  that  tliis  glory  is  now  comparatively  like  that 
of  the  stars  after  the  sun  has  made  his  appearance ;  yet  in 
the  twilight  of  Judaism  the  stars  did  shine,  and  the  same  stars 
still  radiate  light,  although  we  may  not  easily  discern  it  when 
we  undertake  to  look  for  it  by  sun-light.  There  is  not  even 
a  genealogy  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  did  not  once  pos- 
sess importance.  It  settled  all  questions  of  inheritances ;  it 
marked  the  bounds  of  property ;  it  designated  the  right  to 
this  or  that  privilege.  There  is  not  a  narration  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which  had  not  once  its  use.  Examine  the  story 
of  Er  and  Onan  and  of  Judah's  connection  with  his  daughter- 
in-law,  Tamar ;  which  surely  is  among  the  narrations  that  at 
first  sight  we  should  be  inclined  to  spare,  and  even  be  prone 
to  wonder,  perhaps,  how  it  came  there.  Yet  in  Matt.  1:  3, 
we  find  the  fruit  of  that  unlawful  connection,  Pharez  and 
Zara,  in  the  o-enealofiical  re«;ister  of  the  evanojelist.  It  is  one 
link  in  counting  the  genealogy  of  Joseph  from  Abraham  down- 
wards. So  it  is,  also,  as  to  the  story  of  the  Levite  and  his 
concubine  in  Judg.  xix.  The  minute  account  given  of  the 
journey  of  this  couple  seems,  at  first,  to  be  somewhat  strange, 
and  perhaps  even  revoking  to  our  feelings,  considering  how 
we  are  taught  by  the  gospel  to  regard  concubinage.  But 
still,  the  horrid  murder  committed  upon  the  poor  woman  by 
forcing  her  to  gratify  the  lusts  of  a  multitude  of  men  succes- 
sively, was  the  direct  cause  of  a  civil  war,  in  which  the  Ben- 
jamites,  who  had  committed  the  crime  in  question,  became 
30* 


354  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

nearly  extinct.  And  so  I  might  go  on  with  all  the  narra- 
tions of  particular  occurrences — the  family  histories — contain- 
ed in  the  Old  Testament.  A  deep  interest  they  once  had  to 
many.  Admonition,  too,  may  be  drawn  from  most  of  them. 
It  is  with  most  or  all  of  them,  as  Paul  says  it  is  with  the  an- 
cient history  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert :  "  These  things 
were  our  ensamples,  and  they  were  written  for  our  admoni- 
tion, on  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  have  come ;"  1  Cor. 
10:11. 

Who  now  will  venture  to  say,  that  the  histories  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  not  of  a  different  tenor  from  any  other  that 
were  ever  written  by  any  of  the  heathen  nations  ?  First  of 
all,  they  are  throughout  of  a  religious  cast.  The  Hebrews, 
w^hoever  administers  the  government,  are  always  under  a  the- 
ocracy. Providence  guides,  admonishes,  rewards,  and  pun- 
ishes. God  is  the  all  and  in  all.  Then  secondly,  the  He- 
brew historians  have  no  favourite  heroes,  about  whom  ro- 
mance throws  its  gorgeous  vestments.  The  faults  and  follies 
of  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses  even,  Saul,  David,  Solo- 
mon, Asa,  Joash,  Hezekiah,  Josiah — and  all  whose  history  is 
minutely  written,  are  not  concealed.  Here  are  no  mythic 
and  romantic  personages — not  any  one  even  like  the  Cyrus 
of  Xenophon.  David  and  Solomon,  at  the  very  zenith 
of  all  that  was  splendid  and  commanding  in  royalty,  in  tri- 
umphs, in  Avisdom,  in  riches,  in  honours,  are  placed,  at  times, 
in  attitudes  that  cover  them  with  darkness  and  subject  them 
to  degradation.  And  is  there  nothing  in  all  this  practical  ac- 
knowledgment of  God's  providence  and  retributive  justice 
exhibited  by  the  history  of  the  Hebrews,  nothing  in  the  ex- 
posure of  the  crimes  and  vices  of  the  most  renowned  kings 
and  ethical  philosophers,  which  is  adapted  to  our  instruction  ? 
Well  may  we  say  with  Paul ;  "  They  serve  for  our  admoni- 
tion." 

When  I  read  the  Old  Testament,  then,  and  there  m.eet  with 
genealogies  Avhich  have  no  concern  with  the  Gentiles,  and 
family  histories  that  must  have  been  particularly  interesting 
only  to  family  relatives ;  when  I  peruse  all  the  detail  of  the 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       355 

Levitical  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  all  the  architectural  details 
of  the  tabernacle  and  the  temple  ;  or  when  I  read  predictions 
respecting  Edom,  and  Moab,  and  the  Ammonites,  and  the 
Philistines ;  if  I  am  tempted  to  ask,  for  what  purpose  were 
these  things  recorded  in  a  book  of  public  and  permanent  in- 
struction, I  then  ask  myself  how  the  Bible  would  have  ap- 
peared to  us,  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  credibility,  in  case  all 
such  things  had  been  omitted  ?     The  only  answer  I  can  make 
is,  that  it  would  have  assumed  a  mythic  appearance — like  a 
selection  and  dressing  up  of  persons  and  things  in  the  way  of 
romance.     If  all  actors  are  paragons  of  piety  or  of  wickedness ; 
if  all  historical  circumstances  pertain  only  to  choice  events  of  a 
thrilling  nature ;  if  all  prediction  be  only  Messianic  or  eulo- 
gistic of  the  church  ;  then  would  such  a  book  wear  the  air  of 
having  been  written  by  designing  men,  who  meant  to  invest 
all  personages  and  events  with  a  costume  splendid  and  at- 
tractive.    As  it  is  now,  all  looks  like  veritable  reality.     Hu- 
man nature  is,  and  continues  to  be,  human.     In  some  cases 
great  virtues  are  conspicuous,  not  unmingled  with  faults ;  in 
others  great  vices,  with  occasional  touches  of  alleviation  by 
reason  of  social  or  patriotic  qualities.     In  a  word,  the  law- 
giver commands ;  the  historian  relates  circumstances  interest- 
ing to  himself,  or  to  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  or  useful  to 
all,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  case ;  the  prophet  predicts 
things  near,  first  and  principally,  then  things  far  distant,  such 
as  pertained  to  the  Messianic  times  ;  the  genealogist  gives  in 
his  register ;  the  Psalmist  pours  out  the  language  of  devotion 
in  the  sweetest  and  most  engaging  manner ;  the  lover  of  ethi- 
cal proverbs  records  his  discriminating  thoughts ; — and  all  this 
makes  up  a  Hebrew  Bible.     There  is  something  in  it  to 
interest  all,  to  allure  all,  to  do  good  to  all ;  at  least  this  was  so 
at  the  time  when  it  was  written.     How  can  I  doubt  that  all 
this  is  a  reality  ?     No  farce  is  acted  here.     There  is  not  a 
fictitious  personage  upon  the  stage.     All  is  reality ;  and  such 
reality  as  early  ages  and  the  state  of  society  would  seem  to 
have  afforded.     I  become  impressed  more  and  more  with  the 
idea,  that  here  is  no  imposture.    If  it  were  a  description  merely 


356  §  21.   CONSCIENTIOUS    SCRUPLES 

of  the  fortunate  or  blessed  islands,  of  an  Elysium,  of  the  gar- 
den of  the  Hesperides,  of  some  El  Dorado  ever  hoped  and 
wished  for  but  never  actually  found — then  my  suspicions 
would  be  instinctively  awakened.  But  now,  as  it  actually  is 
— how  exceedingly  different  is  the  Old  Testament  from  eve- 
rything of  this  kind  ! 

If  I  allow  then,  as  I  readily  do,  that  many  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  have  now  but  a  very  small  and  subordinate  inter- 
est to  me,  in  a  doctrinal  or  ethical  respect,  yet  am  I  far  from 
saying,  that  those  facts  are  of  no  value,  much  less  that  they 
have  never  been  valuable.  I  have  pointed  out  their  value. 
They  aid  in  the  authentication  of  the  book.  They  lead  me 
to  the  persuasion,  that  what  it  describes  is  a  reality  and  not 
romance.  They  show  how  God's  chosen  people  lived,  and 
thought,  and  acted,  in  public  and  in  private  life.  They  pre- 
sent human  nature  as  it  has  been  and  is,  and  not  simply  draw 
a  picture  of  what  it  would  be  in  a  state  of  perfection.  Why 
may  I  not  conclude,  with  the  apostle  Paul,  that  even  now 
"  all  Scripture  is  profitable"  ? 

But  the  Jewish  dispensation  has  passed  away,  and  all  that 
was  ritual,  and  ceremonial,  and  merely  external,  and  tempo- 
rary, and  peculiar  to  one  nation  only,  has  gone  with  it.  All 
Old  Test.  Scripture  which  is  exclusively  occupied  with  things 
of  this  nature,  has  ceased  to  have  any  other  interest  for  us, 
than  that  which  I  have  stated  above.  In  this  light  we  may 
and  ought  to  regard  it.  Its  day  has  gone  by.  But  it  has  had 
its  day,  and  its  usefulness,  and  its  interest.  Be  it  that  I  must 
now  look  upon  it  as  I  do  upon  the  burning  of  incense,  and 
the  sacrifice  of  goats  and  bullocks,  and  the  washings  and  puri- 
fications of  old ;  yet  even  all  these  had  their  use  and  signifl- 
cancy.  Nay,  are  they  not  still  symbolic,  even  to  us,  of  the  great 
atoning  sacrifice,  and  of  that  purification  of  our  minds  which 
is  required  by  the  gospel  ? 

In  such  a  light  would  I  place  those  parts  of  the  Old  Tester 
raent  toward  which  the  scorn  of  some,  the  severe  satire  of 
others,  and  the  wonder  and  perplexity  of  many,  are  directed. 
Enough  that  they  once  had  their  usefulness  and  their  interest 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      357 

in  the  then  existing  church ;  enough  that  they  are  still  far 
from  being  aUogether  useless  to  us.  I  honour  them  as  con- 
nected with  a  dispensation  that  was  a  type  and  shadow  of  the 
present.  And  while  their  light  is  now  hardly  seen,  by  reason 
of  the  sun  which  pours  its  flood  of  glory  upon  us,  I  call  to 
mind,  that  when  the  ancient  twilight  was,  they  shone  and 
twinkled  in  the  sky,  and  gave  sufficient  light  to  guide  the 
traveller  on  his  way. 

But  let  us  return  to  the  book  of  Esther.  We  have  difficul- 
ties here  ;  but  are  they  invincible  ? 

The  fact  that  the  feast  of  Purim  has  come  down  to  us, 
from  time  almost  immemorial,  (clearly  it  was  an  ancient  cus- 
tom in  the  days  of  Philo  and  Josephus),  proves  as  certainly 
that  the  main  events  related  in  the  book  of  Esther  happened, 
as  the  declaration  of  Independence  and  the  celebration  of  the 
fourth  of  July  prove  that  Ave  separated  from  Great  Britain, 
and  became  an  independent  nation.  And  if  such  events,  in 
the  main,  as  the  book  of  Esther  relates,  did  actually  happen, 
they  were  of  the  deepest  interest  to  the  Jewish  nation.  The 
book  of  Esther  was  an  essential  document  to  explain  the  feast 
of  Purim.  Hence  the  Jews  have  always  had  it  read,  when 
that  feast  is  kept.  In  this  light,  no  one  can  well  regard  it  as 
unimportant. 

As  to  most  of  the  circumstances  respecting  Ahasuerus's  ex- 
travagancies and  follies,  there  will  be  nothing  improbable  in 
the  story,  to  any  one  who  will  read  the  history  of  Mohammed 
Aga  Khan,  not  long  since  on  a  throne  in  the  same  country. 

As  to  the  fact,  that  Haman  gave  the  Jews  eleven  months* 
warning  of  his  assault,  I  have  already  discussed  the  subject  in 
part,  p.  172  seq.  above.  The  thing  looks  improbable,  at  first. 
Yet  when  we  read  Esther  iii,  we  see  that  Haman,  hke  others 
of  his  time,  was  the  slave  of  superstition,  as  well  as  cruelty. 
He  must  needs  cast  lots,  in  so  great  an  affair,  in  order  to  hit 
upon  the  lucky  day.  In  this  way,  an  appeal  to  his  gods  must 
of  course  be  made.  "  He  who  disposes  of  the  lot"  ordered 
it,  that  it  should  fall  as  late  in  the  year  as  it  could  well  be. 
Thus  the  Jews  had  time  to  prepare  for  the  assault,  or  to  re- 


358  §  21.   CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

move  from  tlie  country,  at  their  option.  Haman,  although 
doubtless  dissatisfied  with  the  falling  out  of  the  lot,  could  not 
venture  to  change  a  matter  thus  solemnly  determined  by  aa 
appeal  to  his  gods. 

The  number  slain  by  the  Jews  remains — 75,000.  Ex- 
traordinary it  doubtless  is,  and  it  must  still  appear  to  be  so. 
But  it  is  not  impossible.  Improbable,  I  would  concede,  it 
might  appear  to  be,  at  first  view ;  but,  as  I  have  stated  be- 
fore, if  one  calls  to  mind,  that  the  Persian  court  was  under 
the  control  of  Mordecai  and  Esther ;  that  the  Jews  were 
widely  diffused  at  that  time  over  the  Persian  empire  ;  that  the 
Persian  magistracy  aided  them  ;  and  that  a  bitter  hatred  ex- 
isted between  the  Jews  and  many  of  their  neighbours,  the 
improbability  of  the  thing  is  greatly  diminished.  And  with 
respect  to  the  allegation  that  no  Jews  were  killed  or  wounded 
in  this  terrible  rencontre,  it  is  true  that  no  mention  is  made 
of  any  harm  on  the  part  of  the  Jews.  But  I  do  not  deem 
this  circumstance  at  all  conclusive  to  prove  that  none  was 
done.  Luke,  so  circumstantial  in  his  narrative  of  Christ's  in- 
fancy, says  not  a  word  of  the  massacre  at  Bethlehem ;  nor 
does  Josephus  record  it.  The  author  of  the  book  of  Esther 
is  wholly  intent  upon  the  victory  and  the  deliverance  of  the 
Jews.  The  result  of  the  encounter  he  relates,  viz.  the  great 
loss  and  humiliation  of  Persian  enemies.  But  how  much  it 
cost  to  achieve  this  victory,  he  does  not  relate.  Had  he  been 
simply  a  historian  professing  to  give  a  full  account  of  mat- 
ters, he  would  have  told  this  part  of  the  story.  But  as  he  is 
only  showing  why  the  feast  of  Purim  is  kept  as  a  day  of  joy 
and  gladness,  it  was  hardly  to  his  purpose  to  tell  the  story  of 
Jews  who  might  have  been  wounded  or  destroyed  on  this 
occasion.  It  is  the  main  result  only  which  he  throws  into 
prominent  notice.  And  here  he  leaves  the  matter.  We  can 
scarcely  doubt  that  many  Jews  were  killed  or  wounded.  But 
why  need  we  discredit  the  historian  as  to  what  he  has  com- 
municated, because  he  has  not  told  this  part  of  the  story  ? 

That  the  writer  has  said  nothing  of  the  providence  of  God, 
in  the  whole  matter  of  deliverance  from  dangers  so  imminent, 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       359 

all,  as  I  have  acknowledged,  will  concede  to  be  extraordinary, 
who  are  conversant  with  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  But  it  is 
almost  as  extraordinary,  in  case  we  suppose  the  writer  to  be 
uninspired,  as  it  is  if  we  regard  him  as  inspired.  It  is  with- 
out any  parallel  among  the  writings  of  the  ancient  Jews, 
whether  sacred  or  not.  Canticles  only  excepted.  The  confi- 
dence which  Mordecai  shows  (Esth.  4: 14),  that  the  Jews  will 
experience  "  enlargement  and  deliverance"  in  some  other 
way,  if  Esther  should  refuse  her  interposition,  plainly  shows, 
either  that  he  had  had  some  divine  monition  of  this,  or  else 
that  he  relied  on  God's  promises  to  the  fathers  respecting 
their  posterity.  But  why  the  writer  does  not  plainly  and 
openly  recognize  the  hand  of  God,  in  all  that  happens,  is  still 
a  difficulty  that  v»re  know  not  well  how  to  remove.  Was  the 
author  a  foreigner,  I  mean  a  Jew  born  and  dwelling  in  a  fo- 
reign land  ;  then  why,  in  case  he  wrote  a  book  which  he  wish- 
ed his  heathen  neighbours  to  read,  did  he  not  bring  the  doc- 
trine of  a  special  providence  to  view  ?  Was  he  a  native  and 
an  inhabitant  of  Palestine,  how  could  he  so  depart  from  the 
manner  of  all  the  historians  of  his  country  ?  But  as  this  dif- 
ficulty presses  almost  as  hardly  upon  the  book,  when  consid- 
ered as  uninspired,  as  it  does  when  we  consider  it  as  inspired, 
we  do  not  seem  to  obtain  any  serious  relief  from  our  perplex- 
ity by  denying  the  canonical  authority  of  the  book.  There 
cannot  be  a  moment's  question,  whether  the  author  is  a  Jew, 
sympathizing  in  the  highest  degree  with  his  nation,  and  fully 
believing  in  their  title  to  precedence  over  heathen  nations. 
These  things  lie  upon  the  face  of  the  whole  narration.  The 
impression  of  a  special  providence,  which  is  made  by  the 
book,  is  a  thing  that  admits  of  no  doubt.  What  remains  of 
difficulty  is,  a  departure  so  marked  from  the  usual  style  and 
manner  of  the  Hebrew  histories.  We  might  conjecture  va- 
rious reasons  for  this  ;  but  what  security  could  we  give,  that 
our  conjectures  would  be  well  founded  ?  Better  to  let  the 
matter  remain  where  it  is,  better  to  confess  the  difficulty  and 
not  make  any  attempt  to  conceal  it,  than  to  indulge  in  mere 
idle  conjectures.     Why  can  we  not  rest  a  matter  about  which 


360  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

we  are  in  doubt,  upon  the  authority  of  Christ  and  of  the  apos- 
tles, as  to  admitting  the  claims  of  the  book  before  us  to  a 
place  in  the  canon  ?  It  was  most  surely  in  the  canon  which 
they  have  sanctioned. 

I  cannot  conclude  my  remarks  on  the  book  of  Esther  with- 
out saying,  that  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that,  had  the 
work  been  supposititious,  the  writer  would  beyond  all  doubt 
have  been  pragmatic  in  a  more  than  usual  degree,  in  order 
to  deceive  his  readers  by  the  guise  of  piety.  The  present 
character  of  the  book  proves  beyond  all  reasonable  suspicion, 
that  it  is  not  supposititious. 

We  come  next  to  Coheleth,  or,  as  we  name  it  after  the 
fashion  of  the  Greeks,  Ecclesiastes. 

The  ancient  Jews  doubted  somewhat  about  admitting  this 
book  among  those  which  might  be  indiscriminately  read  by 
all  classes.  Several  of  the  later  Jewish  writers  confess  this, 
and  variously  state  the  reasons.  In  Vayyikra  Rabba,  §  28, 
f.  161,  c.  2,  it  is  said:  "  Our  wise  men  were  desirous  to  keep 
back  (or  conceal,  tlD^b  )  the  book  of  Coheleth,  because  they 
found  in  it  words  which  might  lead  to  heresy."  The  Talmud 
speaks  of  some  "who  found  contradictions  in  it,"  (r.i<nt  "prniD 
nt ,  inclining  this  way  and  that).  Other  Jewish  writers  have 
objected,  that  "it  teaches  the  eternity  of  the  world."  But 
still,  the  party  who  admitted  the  book  without  scruple,  have 
always  been  predominant,  because,  as  the  Talmud  (Shabbath, 
fol.  30.  c.  2)  asserts,  rrnin  ^^ni  iSltJl  inbnn ,  i.  e.  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  it  are  the  words  of  the  law.  In  other  words, 
its  main  doctrine  is  accordant  with  the  other  Scriptures.  On 
this  basis  the  Jews  have  always  remained,  with  the  exception 
of  individuals  skeptically  inclined.  Some  such  have  I  seen 
among  them,  who  maintained  that  the  book  teaches  the  doc- 
trines of  Epicurus. 

Not  exactly  this,  but  not  very  unlike  it,  is  the  prevailing 
opinion  of  Neologists.  The  book  was  written,  they  say,  by 
a  skeptic  ;  at  least,  by  one  who  doubted  or  denied  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul  and  a  future  retribution.  By  "  the  spirit's 
returning  to  God  who  gave  it"   (12:  7),  they  say,  is  meant 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      361 

only  that  God,  who  gave  the  natural  breath  or  spirit,  with- 
draws it  and  our  death  ensues.  And  all  the  declarations 
about  retribution,  they  limit  of  course  to  the  present  world. 

Of  the  justness  and  correctness  of  such  an  exegesis  I  am 
not  persuaded.  The  book  begins  with  the  most  emphatic- 
declarations  concerning  the  vanity  and  brevity  of  human  life^ 
and  the  unsatisfying  nature  of  all  earthly  good.  It  exhibits 
the  truth  of  this  in  the  most  vivid  manner.  It  ends  with  the- 
declaration,  that  the  whole  sum  and  conclusion  of  the  matters 
discussed  is  this,  viz.  "Fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments  j 
for  this  is  the  whole  of  man ;"  i.  e.  it  is  that  for  which  man  was 
created,  and  is  his  all  for  which  he  lives,  or  ought  to  live ;: 
Ecc.  12:  13,  14.  This,  which  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew,  is  much  stronger  and  more  expressive  than  our  com- 
mon English  version :  "  This  is  the  whole  duty  of  man."  But 
why  should  men  fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments? 
The  writer  gives  us  the  reason,  in  the  next  and  last  verse  of 
the  book  :  "  For  God  shall  bring  into  judgment  every  work, 
with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be 
evil."  What  can  this  mean,  if  it  do  not  mean  a yz«^?«re  judg- 
ment? The  writer  often  avers,  in  the  body  of  his  work,  that 
in  the  present  world  the  distinctions  between  virtue  and  vice 
oftentimes  are  not  made,  or  are  not  discernible  by  us ;  and  of 
course,  that  the  retributions  of  virtue  and  vice  are  not  made 
here.  If  not — where  are  they  to  be  made  ?  I  do  not  see 
but  one  answer  to  this  question ;  and  that  answer  bids  me  to* 
believe,  that  the  writer  had  a  pious  intention  in  writing  the 
book. 

Herder,  Eichhorn,  and  others,  have  supposed  the  book  to- 
be  dialogistic,  and  that  one  of  the  colloquists  is  a  skeptic. 
In  this  way  they  solve  the  apparently  skeptical  sentiments 
found  in  it.  Others  have  supposed  that  Koheleth  (nbnp) 
means  assembly,  and  that  the  book  is  written  as  a  representa- 
tion of  what  passed  in  a  company  of  ethical  literati,  in  regard 
to  the  summum  bonum  of  life.  They  compare  it  to  the  Arabic 
Mecamath,  i.  e.  literary  society.  But  with  all  this  we  may 
dispense.     A  dialogue  cannot  be  carried  through,  without  the 

31 


362  §  21.   CONSCIENTIOUS    SCRUPLES 

greate&t  incongruity,  in  many  cases  ;  and  the  conflicting  opin- 
ions of  an  assemblage  of  men  is  encumbered  with  the  same 
difficulty.  There  is  a  more  obvious  and  natural  solution. 
The  writer  is  one  who  had  been  through  all  stages  of  doubt 
in  respect  to  the  chief  good,  and  the  end  of  human  life,  and 
the  doctrine  of  an  overruling  providence,  and  of  retributive 
justice.  He  tells  us  in  the  most  frank  and  impressive  man- 
ner, the  tenor  and  the  drift  of  his  cogitations  on  these  various 
subjects,  while  he  was  in  doubt.  He  tells  us  what  he  thought 
and  said,  in  regard  to  them.  In  so  doing,  he  has  disclosed 
many  a  skeptical  thought  which  passed  through  his  mind.  In 
all  this,  he  has  his  eye  upon  those  who  are  in  that  doubting 
state.  He  sympathizes  with  them,  and  lets  himself  down  to 
their  condition,  so  as  to  interest  them  and  get  their  ear. 
Then  he  tells  them  in  serious  earnest  of  the  vanity  of  human 
Kfe,  of  the  impossibility  of  escaping  retribution,  and  distinctly 
kts  them  know,  that  the  sum  of  all  his  thoughts  and  reflec- 
tions, after  passing  through  all  the  stages  of  doubt  and  per- 
plexity, is,  that  "  the  whole  of  man,  [all  in  which  he  has  any 
deep  and  lasting  interest]},  is  to  fear  God  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments ;  and  the  ground  of  this  conclusion  is,  that  '  all 
their  actions,  good  or  evil,  will  assuredly  be  brought  into 
judgment.* 

I  need  not  stop  here  to  say  how  much  this  book  has  been 
misinterpreted  by  those,  who  had  no  true  discernment  of  its 
real  tenor  and  design.  Perhaps  no  book  in  the  Bible,  if  we 
except  the  Apocalypse,  has  suflTered  so  much  violence.  All 
its  skeptical  declarations  have  been  tortured,  until  they  would 
confess  thorough  orthodoxy.  Even  the  question  which  the 
doubter  asks  (3:  21),  in  order  to  impress  the  idea  that  we 
have  no  certain  knowledge  of  the  future,  viz.  "  Whoknoweth 
"Whether  the  spiiit  of  a  roan  goeth  upward,  and  the  spirit  of  a 
beast  downward  ?"  (which  assuredly  must  be  the  meaning  of 
the  original  Hebrew) — this  question  has  been  turned  into  an 
argument  to  prove,  that  the  spirit  of  a  man  does  go  upward  ! 
So  our  translators  seem  to  have  understood  it ;  but  so  did  not 
Luther  and  many  others.     There  is  nothing,  in  short,  which 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      363 

stands  in  the  way  of  this  spiritualizing  and  analogical  exege- 
sis. It  can  make  strenuous  orthodoxy  even  out  of  Koheleth's 
doubts  and  skeptical  musings.  It  can  convert  all  the  words 
of  Job's  occasional  impatience  and  excitement,  into  meekness 
and  unqualified  submission.  In  its  crucible  all  ores  are  melt- 
ed together,  and  seemingly  sublimated  so  as  to  form  but  one 
purified  and  valuable  substance. 

When  all  is  done  and  said,  however,  the  understanding  and 
the  reason  remain  to  be  satisfied.  Nothing  will  stand  that 
does  not  compose  these  to  peace.  And  why  may  we  not  be 
satisfied,  that  Koheleth  has  given  us  a  picture  of  all  the  doubts 
and  ditficulties  through  which  his  mind  had  passed,  and  then 
subjoined  the  final  result  ?  In  these  times,  we  count  those 
books  very  interesting  and  useful,  in  which  writers  give  us 
faithful  pictures  of  their  former  infidelity  or  skepticism,  and 
then  tell  us  that  it  was  followed  by  an  entire  conviction  of  the 
truth  and  the  power  of  the  gospel.  Two  things  are  taught 
by  this ;  the  one,  that  skepticism  never  satisfies  and  quiets 
the  mind  ;  the  other,  that  deliverance  from  it  is  the  greatest 
of  all  good,  as  well  as  the  highest  duty.  What  forbade  Ko- 
heleth to  enter  upon  the  like  method  of  instruction  ?  There 
is,  and  always  has  been,  among  reflecting  and  inquiring  men, 
a  class  of  minds  to  which  such  a  book  is  admirably  adapted. 
It  enters  into  all  their  sympathies  and  views  ;  it  shows  a  fa- 
miliar acquaintance  with  them  all,  and  ability  to  appreciate 
them  in  a  feeling  manner  ;  and  finally  it  presents,  in  a  strong 
and  powerful  light,  the  necessity  and  the  duty  of  "  fearing 
God  and  keeping  his  commandments."  Had  not  this  book 
been  so  much  abused,  as  to  its  exegesis,  by  commentators  and 
preachers  who  did  not  understand  its  plan,  it  might  have  been 
vastly  more  useful  to  the  church.  As  matters  now  are,  the 
violence  done  to  it  by  interpreters  revolts  the  candid  and  in- 
genuous mind,  and  turns  many  away  from  the  book,  because 
they  are  led  to  despair  of  obtaining  anything  satisfactory 
from  it.  I  would  hope  that  the  time  is  not  fai'  distant,  when 
we  shall  have  some  more  enlightened  views  of  this  produc- 
tion laid  before  our  rehgious  pub  He,  than  have  yet  been  pre- 


364  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

sented.  Wlien  this  shall  be  done,  I  think  the  doubts  of  con- 
scientious inquirers  will  be  removed,  and  they  will  cheerfully 
accord  to  Koheleth  a  place  in  the  canon.  Certain  it  is  that 
the  book  had  such  a  place,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles. Whenever  it  shall  be  naturally  interpreted,  and  the 
plan  of  it  fully  understood,  objections  to  it  must  cease,  except 
on  the  part  of  those  who  reject  all  revelation. 

Last,  but  not  least  in  point  of  difficulty,  comes  the  book  of 
Canticles,  or,  as  the  Hebrews  name  it,  the  Song  of  Songs, 
i.  e.  the  Most  Excellent  Song. 

The  history  of  what  has  befallen  this  book,  and  how  it  has 
been  treated,  would  of  itself  occupy  a  volume  of  no  inconsid- 
erable extent.  With  one  class,  it  is  a  book  of  a  symbolic  and 
mysterious  nature,  full  of  real  spiritiLality  under  the  images 
of  fervent  conjugal  love.  With  another  it  is  altogether  aph- 
rodisiac or  amatory^  like  some  of  Horace's  Odes,  or  Ana- 
creon,  or  Tibullus,  or  Ovid's  Ai-t  of  Love.  Others  choose  a 
kind  of  middle  path,  supposing  the  design  is  to  commend 
chaste  conjugal  love,  and  to  hold  up  in  an  attractive  light  the 
advantages  of  monogamy  in  distinction  from  polygamy.  Each 
of  these  classes  have  much  to  say,  in  defence  of  their  respec- 
tive opinions.  To  canvass  the  subject  at  length,  is  out  of 
question  here.  Only  a  few  things  that  seem  to  be  among  the 
more  important  ones,  can  be  discussed  on  the  present  occa- 
sion. 

Amatory  nearly  all  the  German  Neologists  suppose  it  to  be. 
And  considered  as  such,  the  book,  I  suspect,  has  had  more 
than  its  equal  share  of  attention,  in  the  way  of  illustrating 
its  language  and  of  unfolding  its  supposed  amatory  scenes. 
Young  adventurers  are  very  apt  to  choose  this  book  as  their 
theme.  Evvald,  Umbreit,  Doepke,  and  others,  put  their  hands 
to  it  while  young ;  and  they  seem  to  have  become  rather  shy 
of  it  since,  as  the  book,  on  further  consideration,  seems  not 
altogether  so  plain  and  obvious  as  they  had  once  supposed. 
Those  who  regard  it  as  a  picture  of  chaste  monogamic  atlection, 
are  fewer,  and  are  less  able  to  make  out,  from  the  language 
of  the  book,  the  probability  of  such  a  meaning,  than  the  pre- 


AS  TO  A  PART  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       365 

ceding  class.  The  scenery  is  oriental.  One  must  do  vio- 
lence to  his  own  mind  to  get  away  from  the  impression,  that, 
if  it  is  amatory  at  all,  love  is  the  subject  as  it  exists  in  a  Ha- 
rem, rather  than  in  connection  with  a  single  wife. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  confidence  of  not  a  few  critics  of 
late,  I  would  ask  :  Is  it,  was  it  originally,  designed  to  be  re- 
gai'ded  as  amatory  ? 

Herder,  who  seems  rather  to  have  taken  the  lead  among: 
the  recent  critics  in  Germany  that  favour  the  amatory  exe- 
gesis, has  boldly  avowed  his  sentiments  respecting  it.  "  The 
whole  book,"  he  says,  "  is  love,  love.  It  begins  with  a  kiss, 
and  ends  with  a  tender  sigh."  And  so  Eichhorn  and  many 
others,  who  have  followed  on  in  this  train.  Even  in  ancient 
times,  the  Jews  had  some  difficulty  with  the  contents  of  Can- 
ticles. Origen  (Prol.  ad  Cant.)  and  Jerome  (Praef.  ad 
Ezech.)  inform  us,  that  the  Jews  of  their  time  withheld  this 
book,  and  also  the  beginning  and  ending  of  Ezekiel,  and  the 
first  part  of  Genesis,  from  persons  under  thirty  years  of  age, 
lest  they  should  abuse  them.  Theodoret  mentions,  that  in 
his  day  there  were  some  who  denied  its  spiritual  meaning. 
Theodorus  of  Mopsuesta  was  condemned  by  the  second  Sy- 
nod of  Constantinople  for  saying,  that  "  he  was  ashamed  to 
read  through  the  Canticles."  In  modern  times,  Clericus  and 
Grotius  avowed  sentiments  not  unlike  to  those  of  Herder ; 
and  now  this  kind  of  exegesis  has  become  the  reigning  fash- 
ion. 

Were  one  to  come  to  the  reading  of  this  book,  without  any 
previous  knowledge  of  the  habitudes  of  the  Jews  in  connect- 
ing the  conjugal  relation  and  conjugal  affection  with  religious 
subjects,  and  without  any  knowledge  of  the  extent  to  which 
this  is  carried  in  the  Eastern  countries,  I  should  doubt 
whether  he  would  ever  suspect  the  poem  before  us  of  being  a 
religious  one.  The  name  of  God,  or  any  reference  to  him, 
does  not  once  occur  in  the  whole  book.  From  beginning  to  end 
is  apparently  the  language  of  love  ;  and  this  without  any  ex- 
planation.    Yet,  after  all,  there  is  ground  to  doubt  whether 

31* 


366  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS    SCRUPLES 

an  interpretation  that  would  convert  the  book  into  an  Idyll,  or 
an  amatory  Eclogue,  is  well  grounded. 

(1)  First  of  all — in  what  part  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  can 
we  find  any  composition  of  an  analogous  nature  ?  All — every 
Psalm,  every  piece  of  history,  every  part  of  prophecy — has  a 
religious  aspect,  and  (the  book  of  Esther  perhaps  excepted) 
is  filled  with  theocratic  views  of  things.  How  came  there 
here  to  be  such  a  solitary  exception,  so  contrary  to  the  ge- 
nius and  nature  of  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible  ?  It  is  passing 
strange,  if  real  amatory  Idylls  are  mingled  with  so  much,  all 
of  which  is  of  a  serious  and  religious  nature.  If  the  author 
viewed  his  composition  as  being  of  an  amatory  nature,  would 
he  have  sought  a  place  for  it  among  the  sacred  books  ?  And 
subsequent  redactors  or  editors — would  they  have  ranked  it 
here,  in  case  they  had  regarded  it  in  the  same  light  ?  I  can 
scarcely  deem  this  credible.  So  different  was  the  reverence 
of  the  Jews  for  their  Scriptures  from  any  mere  approbation 
of  an  amatory  poem  as  such,  that  I  must  believe  that  the  in- 
sertion of  Canticles  among  the  canonical  books,  was  the  re- 
sult of  a  full  persuasion  of  its  spiritual  import.  Had  the  case 
stood  otherwise,  why  did  they  not  introduce  other  secular 
works,  as  well  as  this,  into  the  Canon  ?  Nor  is  this  estimate 
of  the  book  a  figment  of  allegorical  exegesis,  introduced  by 
Philo,  and  spread  far  and  wide  by  Origen.  The  book  had  a 
place  in  the  canon,  at  all  events  before  the  time  of  the  Macca- 
bees ;  so  that  the  judgment  of  very  ancient  times,  in  the  Jew- 
ish church,  must  have  coincided  w^ith  the  judgment  in  later 
times,  of  a  large  portion  of  Christian  interpreters. 

(2)  It  is  now  generally  agreed,  as  Rosenmueller  concedes 
(Proem,  ad  Comm.  H.),  that  all  the  parts  of  this  book  are 
coherent  and  have  a  mutual  relation,  and  that  the  same  per- 
sonages are  introduced  and  continued  as  speakers  through  the 
whole.  The  tone  of  the  language,  the  style,  the  idiom,  the 
special  formulas  of  expression  (such  as  adjuring  by  the  does 
and  the  goats,  etc.),  are  of  the  same  tenor  throughout.  From 
the  same  hand  and  mind  the  whole  composition  doubtless 
came,  whoever  the  author  was. 


AS  TO  A  PART  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      367 

If  now  it  is  an  amatory  Eclogue,  methinks  there  must  be 
some  plan,  some  progress,  some  denouement,  that  is  not  only- 
appreciable  by  a  critical  reader,  but  discernible  by  an  ordina- 
ry reader.     Yet  such  a  plan  has  never  been  developed,  at 
least  to  any  general  satisfaction.     One  set  of  interpreters, 
(even  such  men  as  Velthusen,   C.  F.  Ammon,  Lindemann, 
Umbreit,  Michaelis,  Jacobi),  have  endeavoured  to  make  out 
from  the  book,  that  it  consists  of  amatory  epistles  addressed 
by  Solomon  to  a  shepherd's  beautiful  wife  ;  who  retains,  how- 
ever, her  fidelity  and  remains  true  to  her  husband.     But  how 
is  this  any  less  than  to  say,  that  Solomon's  amatory  effusions, 
designed  for  seduction,  are  incorporated  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures ?     No  refutation  of  this  is  needed.     Others  make  the 
book  a  series  of  epithalamia  on  the  marriage  of  Solomon  with 
Pharaoh's  daughter ;  which,  as  it  was  an  open  and  palpable 
transgression  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  does  not  much  mend  the 
matter.     This  seems  to  be  kindred  with  the  view  which  some 
recent  critics  (e.  g.  Lengerke)  take  of  the  45th  Psalm,  viz., 
that  it  is  an  epithalamium  on  the  marriage  of  Ahab  with  Je- 
zebel, or  (e.  g.  De  Wette)  of  Xerxes  with  some  Jewess ! 
Ewald  finds  in  the  book  a  beautiful  country  girl,  wandering 
in  the  pleasant  fields  of  Engedi,  seen,  and  forcibly  carried  off, 
by  king  Solomon,  who  attempts  to  seduce  her  by  his  amatory 
poetry.     But  what  then  are  all  the  tender  expressions  of  af- 
fection on  the  part  of  the  woman,  in  1:  9 — 11.  2:  10 — 15.  3: 
1 — 5,  et.  al.  ?     Bossuet  found  in  the  book  a  pastoral  drama 
of  seven  acts.     And  these  are  not  a  tithe  of  the  conceits 
which  have  been  thrown  out  before  the  public,  in  regard  to 
the  work  before  us. 

How  difficult  it  is  to  make  out  any  plan  of  an  Eclogue, 
these  perpetual  changes  and  variations  of  opinion  may  serve 
to  show.  But  let  us  go,  for  a  moment,  to  the  book  itself.  At 
the  outset  we  find  the  fair  one  in  tlie  harem  of  the  king's  pa- 
lace, exulting  in  the  love  of  Solomon.  Then  (1:  7  seq.)  we 
find  her  in  the  country  tending  flocks,  and  her  lover  a  shep- 
herd. But  this  shepherd  has  a  domicil,  whose  beams  are 
cedar,  and  the  rafters  fir  (1;  17).     Next,  we  find  the  lover 


368  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

leaping  among  the  mountains,  and  skipping  among  the  hills ; 
2:  8.  Then  the  fair  one  has  lost  her  lover,  and  she  goes 
forth  to  seek  him  by  night,  and  brings  him  back  to  the  house 
of  her  mother  ;  3:  1  seq.  Next  Solomon  is  coming  out  of  the 
wilderness,  on  a  palankeen  with  sixty  bearers ;  3:  G  seq. 
Next  he  is  with  his  beloved  on  Lebanon  ;  4:  8.  Again  she 
loses  him,  and  goes  out  to  seek  him  in  the  city,  and  is  mal- 
treated by  the  watch ;  5:  1  seq.  Then  we  find  him  in  the 
garden  of  spices  (6:  1  seq.),  where  she  meets  him,  and  they 
go  to  the  Harem,  where  are  threescore  queens,  and  fourscore 
concubines,  and  virgins  without  number,  all  of  whom  she  ex- 
cels, and  they  praise  her  beauty  ;  6:  8  etc.  Throughout  the 
whole,  there  is  a  mutual  interchange  of  the  language  of  pas- 
sionate affection,  rarely  interrupted  by  any  other  speakers. 
A  drama  surely  it  is  not,  (although  it  has  often  been  called 
so),  unless  a  colloquy  in  which  there  is  no  change  of  speakers 
is  a  drama.  Besides,  there  is  no  plot,  no  denouement,  no 
crisis.  The  whole  book  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the 
seeming  exchange  of  expressions  of  endearment,  with  locali- 
ties and  shifting  of  scenery  adapted  to  call  forth  new  and 
lively  emotions. 

Is  it  the  custom,  now,  of  any  nation  to  write  amatory  ec- 
logues in  such  a  manner  as  this  ?  If  literally  interpreted,  the 
whole  book,  while  it  has  some  beauties  of  description,  is  still 
nothing  less  than  a  mass  of  incongruities,  without  plan,  and 
without  the  accomplishment  of  anything  saving  the  outpour- 
ings of  amorous  desire. 

It  was  on  this  ground,  that  Rosenraueller  abandoned  the 
literal  exegesis,  although  he  was  nearly  alone  in  doing  so 
among  the  Neologists  ;  Proem.  HI.  I  must  confess  for  my- 
self, that  the  words  of  the  celebrated  Rabbi,  Aben  Ezra,  in 
the  Pref.  to  his  Comm.  on  this  book,  appear  to  me  very  just 
and  striking :  ^3  p'::r\  '^'nnin  d-i-i^irn  ^^\!J  r^^rh  nb^bn  nb^bn 
')\Hi  ^"^pn  "^nra  ^lon  nn=3  wsb  inibrn  bna  "i?ibi  bu;^  -jnn  b:>  tj< 
:  T^v:^  Th'S ,  i.  e.  "  Profanation  !  profanation  !  to  place  the 
Canticles  among  amatory  compositions ;  but  everything  is  said 
in  the  way  of  allegory.   And  unless  the  dignity  of  it  [the  book] 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       369 

had  been  great,  it  had  not  been  incorporated  with  the  holy 
books.  Nor  is  there  any  controversy  respecting  it."  He 
means  to  say,  that  this  was  not,  and  could  not  be,  fairly  called 
in  question.  And  why  is  he  not  in  the  right  ?  "  The  uni- 
versal genius  and  method  of  the  sacred  books,"  says  Rosen- 
mueller,  "  exclude  the  idea  of  admitting  among  them  songs 
about  the  ordinary  love  of  man  and  woman." 

But  is  there  any  example  in  the  other  Scriptures  of  alle- 
gorizing as  to  spiritual  things,  by  employing  such  language 
and  such  conceptions  as  are  to  be  found  in  Canticles  ?  I  an- 
swer yes,  without  hesitation.  This  sort  of  imagery  is  fre- 
quent in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  New.  Frequently 
are  the  Jews  charged  with  "  going  a  whoring  after  other 
gods;"  Ex.  34:  15,  16.  Lev.  20:  5,  6.  Num.  15:  39.  Deut. 
31:  16.  2  Chron.  21:  13.  Ps.  73:  27.  Ezek.  6:  9.  Here  the 
idea  is,  that  they  were  affianced  to  the  true  God,  and  could 
not  seek  after  idols  without  incurring  the  guilt  of  adultery. 
So  God  calls  himself  the  husband  of  the  Jews ;  Isa.  54:  5. 
The  nation  of  Israel  is  his  bride  ;  Isa.  62:  4,  5.  In  Isa.  50: 
1,  Jehovah  asks  where  is  the  bill  of  divorcement  on  his  part, 
that  Israel  have  departed  from  him.  Jeremiah  speaks  of  the 
espousals  of  Israel,  when  young,  in  the  wilderness.  In  Jer. 
3:  1 — 11,  the  prophet  speaks  of  Israel  as  playing  the  harlot 
and  committing  adultery,  in  forsaking  Jehovah.  In  Ezekiel, 
two  long  chapters  (xvi.  xxiii.)  are  occupied  with  carrying 
throuo-h  the  imagery  drawn  from  such  a  connection.  Hosea 
(i — iii.)  recognizes  the  same  principle,  and  carries  out  the 
imagery  into  much  detail.  These  are  merely  specimens. 
Ps.  xlv.  presents  the  Mediator,  the  King  of  Zion,  in  the  atti- 
tude of  a  husband  to  the  church,  and  celebrates  the  union 
between  the  former  and  the  latter.  So  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment this  imagery  is  very  familiar ;  See  Matt.  9:  15.  John 
3:  29.  Eev.  19:  7.  21:  2.  Specially  consult  2  Cor.  11:  2, 
and  Eph.  5:  22 — 32,  where  the  apostle  has  gone  into  much 
particularity  as  to  the  duties  of  the  marriage  relation,  and 
then  avows,  that  he  "  speaks  concerning  Christ  and  the 
church." 


370  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

Such  is  the  custom  of  the  Hebrew  writers  and  of  the  apos- 
tles. If  now  this  imagery  is  so  often  employed,  in  all  parts 
of  the  Bible,  what  forbids  the  idea,  that  there  may  be  one 
short  book  in  which  it  occupies  an  exclusive  place,  and  is 
designed  to  symbolize  the  love  that  existed  between  God  and 
his  ancient  people  or  the  church,  or  rather,  which  ought  to 
have  existed  on  their  part  between  God  and  his  spiritually 
regenerated  people,  who  have  become  one,  (in  a  spiritual 
sense)  with  him,  and  are  forever  united  to  him  ?  It  cannot 
be  shown,  a  'priori^  that  this  is  even  improbable. 

Yet  I  would  not  wish  to  represent  the  case,  in  regard  to 
Canticles,  as  different  from  what  it  really  is.  In  other  books 
these  conjugal  allusions  and  relations  are  only  occasional  and 
local,  like  other  comparisons  or  similies  introduced  merely  for 
the  sake  of  illustration  or  of  vivid  representation  ;  in  Canti- 
cles they  are  sole  and  exclusive — the  all  in  all.  Nor  is  there 
even  a  single  reference  to  simple  spiritual  things  expressly 
given  in  the  whole  book.  The  reader  finds  not  a  hint,  that 
he  is  to  interpret  the  book  in  this  way.  It  is  this  which  con- 
stitutes the  main  strength  of  those,  who  assert  the  book  to  be 
altogether  amatory  in  its  character. 

I  should  feel  more  pressed  by  this  circumstance,  did  I  not 
know,  that  extensive  usage  of  a  similar  nature  exists,  and 
has  for  a  long  period  existed,  in  the  oriental  countries,  e.  g. 
among  the  Persians,  the  Turks,  the  Arabians,  and  the  Hin- 
doos. In  the  Musnavi  of  Jellaleddin,  the  poems  of  Jami,  and 
above  all  in  the  odes  of  Hafiz,  are  many  productions  appar- 
ently of  an  amatory  nature,  which  the  Persians  (there  are 
some  dissenters)  regard  as  expressive  of  the  intercourse  of 
the  soul  with  God.  Hafiz,  whose  odes,  as  has  been  remark- 
ed, are  sung  to  excite  youth  to  pleasure,  and  chanted  to  re- 
mind the  aged  of  the  raptures  of  divine  love,  was  a  Sufi  dev- 
otee of  the  most  strenuous  cast.  Hence  his  poetry  is  regard- 
ed as  expressive  of  the  longings  of  the  soul  after  God,  and  of 
the  enjoyment  that  results  from  communion  with  him.  The 
loves  of  Megnoun  and  Leilah  have  been  celebrated  in  the 
Arabic,  the  Persian,  and  the   Turkish  languages ;  yet  with 


A3  TO  A  PART  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       371 

the  understanding,  in  all  cases,  that  these  personages  are 
mere  allegorical  characters — i.  e.  mere  personifications  of  re- 
ligious affection. 

Mr.  Lane,  in  his  admirable  work  on  the  Modern  Egyptians, 
has  given  us  an  opportunity  of  presenting  this  subject  a  little 
more  in  extenso,  than  I  have  yet  done.  While  in  Cairo  he  at- 
tended the  religious  exercises  of  the  Dervishes  of  the  highest 
order,  on  the  birth  day  of  the  prophet  (Mohammed).  Of 
course  the  devotional  exercises  of  that  day  were  designed  to 
be  of  the  very  highest  cast.  A  company  of  the  leading  Der- 
vishes met,  by  moonlight,  and  after  a  variety  of  chants  out  of 
the  Koran,  they  proceeded  to  the  exercises  thus  described  by 
Mr.  Lane. 

"  I  shall  here  give  a  translation  of  one  of  these  Mooicesh  - 
shahhs,  which  are  very  numerous,  as  a  specimen  of  their  style, 
from  abook  containing  a  number  of  these  poems,  which  I  have 
purchased  during  the  present  Moo'lid,  from  a  durwee'sh  who 
presides  at  many  zikrs.  He  pointed  out  the  following  poem  as  one 
of  those  most  common  at  zikrs,  and  as  one  which  was  sung  at  the 
zikr  which  I  have  begun  to  describe.  I  translate  it  verse  for  verse ; 
and  imitate  the  measure  and  system  of  rhyme  of  the  original,  with 
this  difference  only,  that  the  first,  third,  and  fifth  lines  of  each 
stanza  rhyme  with  each  other  in  the  original,  but  not  in  my  trans- 
lation. 

With  love  my  heart  is  troubled ; 

And  mine  eye-lid  hind'reth  sleep : 
My  vitals  are  dissever'd  ; 

While  with  streaming  tears  I  weep. 
My  union  seems  far  distant : 

Will  my  love  e'er  meet  mine  eye  ? 
Alas  !   Did  not  estrangement 

Draw  my  tears,  I  would  not  sigh. 

By  dreary  nights  I'm  wasted  : 

Absence  makes  my  hope  expire : 
My  tears,  like  pearls,  are  droj^ping ; 

And  my  heart  is  wrapt  in  fire. 
Whose  is  like  my  condition? 

Scarcely  know  I  remedy. 
Alas  !  Did  not  estrangement 

Draw  my  tears,  I  would  not  sigh. 


372  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS    SCRUPLES 

O  turtle-dove !   acquaint  me 

Wherefore  thus  dost  thou  lament  ? 
Art  thou  so  stung  by  absence  ? 

Of  thy  wings  depriv'd,  and  jDent  ? 
He  saith,  '  Our  griefs  are  equal : 

Worn  away  with  love,  I  lie.' 
Alas  I  Did  not  estrangement 

Draw  my  tears,  I  would  not  sigh. 

O  First  and  Everlasting ! 

Show  thy  favour  yet  to  me ; 
Thy  slave,  Ahh'mad  El-Bek'ree,* 

Hath  no  Lord  excepting  Thee. 
By  Ta'-Ha',t  the  great  Prophet ! 

Do  thou  not  his  wish  deny. 
Alas !  Did  not  estrangement 

Draw  my  tears,  I  would  not  sigh. 

I  must  translate  a  few  more  lines,  to  show  more  strongly  the 
similarity  of  these  songs  to  that  of  Solomon  :  and  lest  it  should 
be  thought  that  I  have  varied  the  expressions,  I  shall  not  attempt 
to  translate  them  into  verse.  In  the  same  collection  of  poems 
sung  at  zikrs  is  one  which  begins  with  these  lines. 

0  gazelle  from  among  the  gazelles  of  El-Yem'en  ! 

1  am  thy  slave  without  cost : 

O  thou  small  of  age,  and  fresh  of  skin  ! 

O  thou  who  art  scarce  past  the  time  of  drinking  milk ! 

In  the  first  of  these  verses,  we  have  a  compai'ison  exactly 
agreeing  with  that  in  the  concluding  verse  of  Solonion's  Song ; 
for  the  word  which,  in  our  Bible,  is  translated  a  'roe,'  is  used 
in  Arabic  as  synonymous  with  ghaza'l  (or  a  gazelle);  and  the 
mountains  of  El-Yemen  are  '  the  mountains  of  spices.' — This 
poem  ends  with  the  following  lines. 

The  phantom  of  thy  form  visited  me  in  my  slumber: 

I  said,  'O  phantom  of  slumber!    who  sent  thee  ?' 

He  said,  '  He  sent  me  whom  thou  knowest ; 

He  whose  love  occupies  thee.' 

The  beloved  of  my  heart  visited  me  in  the  darkness  of  night : 

*  The  author  of  the  poem.  The  singer  sometimes  puts  his  own  name 
in  the  place  of  tliis. 

t  Tu'-Ha  (as  I  liave  mentioned  on  a  former  occasion)  is  a  name  of 
tlie  Arabian  Prophet. 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      373 

I  Stood,  to  show  him  honour,  until  he  sat  down. 

I  said,  '  O  thou  my  petition,  and  all  my  desire ! 

Hast  thou  come  at  midnight,  and  not  feared  the  watchmen  ? 

He  said  to  me,  '  I  feared ;  hut,  however,  love 

Had  taken  from  me  my  soul  and  my  breath.' 

Compare  the  above  with  the  second  and  five  following  verses 
of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Solomon's  Song. — Finding  that  songs  of 
this  description  are  extremely  numerous,  and  almost  the  only 
poems  sung  at  zikrs  ;  that  they  are  composed  for  this  purpose, 
and  intended  only  to  have  a  spiritual  sense  (though  certainly  not 
understood  in  such  a  sense  by  the  generality  of  the  vulgar*)  ;  I 
cannot  entertain  any  doubt  as  to  the  design  of  Solomon's  Song. 
The  specimens  which  I  have  just  given  of  the  religious  love- 
songs  of  the  Moos'lims  have  not  been  selected  in  preference  to 
others  as  most  agreeing  with  that  of  Solomon ;  but  as  being  in 
frequent  use  ;  and  the  former  of  the  two,  as  having  been  sung  at 
the  zikr  which  I  have  begun  to  describe." 

Such  then  is  the  custom  of  the  Arabians,  in  their  most  sub- 
limated devotions,  and  on  occasions  the  most  solemn.  "Who 
will  deny  that  Mr.  Lane  has  some  good  reason  for  saying,  as 
he  does,  that  "  he  cannot  entertain  any  doubt  of  Solomon's 
Song." 

"Was  it  impossible,  now,  for  the  neighbours  of  the  Arabians 
to  have  a  similar  custom,  in  their  flights  of  highest  devotion  ? 
From  some  of  the  deepest  affections  of  our  nature  thej  drew 
their  colouring,  in  order  to  pourtray  the  longings  and  the  en- 
joyments of  the  soul.  It  will  be  allowed,  on  all  hands,  that 
no  material  for  colouring  could  be  of  a  more  vivid  nature. 
The  moral  tendency  is  the  only  draw-back  in  regard  to  the 
whole  matter.  On  this  I  must  say  a  few  words  more,  and 
then  leave  the  matter  to  the  reader. 

For  one  I  feel  obliged  to  say,  that  the  state  of  feeling  in 
our  western  world,  which  has  been  consequent  on  elevating 
the  rank  of  women  in  society,  and  giving  them  a  place  among 
assemblages  either  for  instruction  or  entertainment,  stands  in 

*  As  a  proof  of  this,  I  may  mention,  that,  since  the  above  was  written, 
I  have  found  the  last  six  of  the  lines  here  translated,  with  some  slight 
alterations,  inserted  as  a  common  love-song  in  a  portion  of  the  Thousand 
and  One  Nights,  prmted  at  Calcutta  (Vol.  I.  p.  425). 

32 


374  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS    SCRUPLES 

some  measure  opposed  to  the  tenor  of  such  a  book  as  Canti- 
cles. As  a  book  of  amatory  odes  we  might  praise  and  ad- 
mire it ;  for,  in  the  original,  it  is  much  more  delicate  than  our 
English  version  represents  it  to  be.  But  we  shrink  instinc- 
tively from  connecting  amatory  ideas  and  feelings  with  a  de- 
votional frame  of  mind.  We  find  the  temptation  to  dwell  on 
the  carnal  imagery  sometimes,  perhaps  often,  leading  us  away 
from  pure  and  spiritual  devotion.  This  I  believe  to  be  the 
general — the  all  but  universal  feeling  among  us.  I  do  not,  I 
cannot  disapprove  of  this  feeling,  I  commend  it.  It  shows 
what  progress  Christianity  has  made,  in  inspiring  the  mind 
with  quick  and  powerful  sensitiveness,  in  regard  to  a  matter 
which  is  always  fraught  with  danger,  and  particularly  to  the 
young.  Where  promiscuous  assemblage  of  the  two  sexes  is 
so  frequent  as  it  is  among  us,  nothing  but  a  quick  and  high 
sense  of  delicacy  could  prevent  the  multiplied  evils  that  might 
easily  grow  out  of  it.  Our  state  of  manners,  our  usages  in 
regard  to  female  privileges  and  companionship,  render  that 
kind  of  cautious  feeling  on  the  subject  of  amatory  descriptions 
and  allusions,  necessary  to  us  as  a  safeguard. 

I  take  it  for  granted,  that  such  a  book  as  the  Canticles  pre- 
supposes a  state  of  society  which  is  far  from  the  highest 
Christian  refinement  of  manners.  In  the  New  Testament^ 
such  a  book,  i.  e.  one  exclusively  of  such  a  tenor,  would  be  an 
utter  stranger.  It  could  hardly  be  recognized  as  one  of  this 
collection.  But  when  all  this  is  said  and  conceded,  it  does 
not  follow,  that  such  a  book  as  Canticles  might  not  have 
found  a  place  in  the  ancient  canon.  Different — very  different 
— was  the  state  of  the  Jews  in  ancient  times.  Language  that 
we  could  not  now  tolerate,  above  all  could  not  tolerate  in  any 
company  composed  of  both  sexes,  gave  no  offence  to  delicacy 
in  the  times  of  general  simplicity  and  rude  cultivation.  It 
might  be  employed,  then,  much  more  unexceptionably  among 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  than  it  can  be  among  us.  Certain  it  is, 
that  the  Old  Test.  Scriptures  abundantly  illustrate  this  posi- 
tion, by  the  not  unfrequentcxpressions  found  in  them,  which 
we  feel  obliged  to  mollify  in  translating,  but  which,  when  first 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      375 

uttered,  needed  no  such  process.  Everything  almost  of  this 
nature  depends  on  the  state  and  habitudes  of  a  nation  or  peo- 
ple. Some  things  there  are,  which  must  always  be  indecent, 
at  all  times,  and  among  all  nations-  But  other  things,  e.  g. 
phraseology,  manner  of  dress,  and  all  that  may  be  classed  un- 
der the  ddidqjOQa  of  morals,  is  mutable,  and  may  be  proper  or 
improper  joro  re  nata.  Nor  is  this  peculiar  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  1  Cor.  11;  13  seq.,  Paul  says  that  it  is  a  shame  for 
a  man  to  wear  long  hair ;  that  a  woman  must  not  pray  un- 
veiled in  public  assemblies ;  that  women  must  wear  their  hair 
long  in  the  way  of  ornament  and  covering;  and  the  like.  Is 
so  much  of  this,  now,  as  pertains  merely  to  costume,  or  man- 
ner of  wearing  the  hair,  matter  of  perpetual  obligation  to  all 
churches  ?  Certainly  not.  And  why  ?  Because  the  things 
commanded  or  forbidden  are  among  the  udidcpoQa,  i.  e.  things 
in  themselves  neither  good  nor  evil,  but  still  things  that  may 
be  indecorous,  if  practised  under  certain  circumstances  and 
among  a  people  of  such  usages  as  the  Greeks.  In  public  no 
woman  could  decently  appear  unveiled ;  a  usage  widely  ex- 
tant even  now  in  Asia.  For  men  to  wear  long  hair,  was  an 
indication  among  the  Greeks  of  an  effeminate,  imbecile  char- 
acter, who  courted  adornment  like  a  female,  and  was  probably 
one  of  the  Tza&ixoi.  But  in  our  country,  the  state  of  man- 
ners and  customs  is  so  different,  that  so  far  as  decency  of  ap- 
pearance is  concerned,  the  matters  of  which  the  apostle  here 
treats  are  things  indifferent.  In  respect,  however,  to  the 
public pra^inff  of  fem^Xes,  the  apostle  in  the  same  epistle,  be- 
comes so  impressed  with  the  subject,  when  he  comes  to  treat 
of  the  exercise  of  the  gift  of  speaking  with  tongues  in  public, 
that  he  positively  and  plainly  forbids  the  whole  thing.  "  Let 
your  women  keep  silence  in  the  churches  ;  for  it  is  not  per- 
mitted them  to  speak ;"  1  Cor.  14:  34.  And  so  again  in 
1  Tim.  2:  11,  12,  "  Let  the  women  learn  silence  with  all  sub- 
jection ;  but  I  suffer  not  a  woman  to  teach  [i.  e.  in  public,  or 
to  preach]^  nor  to  usurp  authority  over  the  man,  but  to  be  in 
silence."  Some  have  thought  that  these  two  passages  are 
opposed  or  contradictory  to  the  preceding.     I  do  not  under- 


376  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS    SCRUPLES 

stand  them  so.  In  the  first  passage,  Paul  is  merely  correct- 
ing abuses ;  and  he  so  limits  the  public  speaking  of  women, 
that,  if  done  at  all,  it  should  be  done  with  entire  decorum. 
In  the  last  two,  he  gives  his  opinion  what  ought  to  be  and 
should  be  the  established  principle  of  the  church,  in  regard  to 
the  matter  of  public  female  addresses.  Of  course,  he  must  be 
understood  as  speaking  in  reference  to  mixed  assemblies. 

There  are  several  things  to  be  learned  from  cases  of  such 
a  nature  as  this.  First  of  all,  that  even  Christianity,  which 
is  always  watchful  over  the  to  y.aXov  and  to  ttq^ttov,  may  for- 
bid things  in  certain  circumstances,  which  are  matters  of  per- 
fect indifference  in  others.  The  like  was  the  eating  of  meats 
that  had  been  presented  in  the  temple  of  idols  ;  the  circum- 
cision of  Christians  standing  in  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  Jews, 
e.  g.  of  Timothy,  etc.  So  there  may  be,  and  there  are,  some 
things  which  are  local  and  temporary  in  the  Gospel,  as  well 
as  in  the  Law.  Secondly,  that  which  is  not  malum  in  se  may 
be  tolerated  for  a  while,  and  regulated,  even  in  cases  where, 
in  the  sequel,  it  may  be  judged  necessary  or  best  entirely  to 
forbid  it.  Such  was  the  temporary  toleration  of  the  public 
addresses  or  prayers  of  women  at  Corinth,  in  promiscuous  as- 
semblies. The  precept  forbidding  this,  is  of  course  not  to  be 
regarded  as  extending  to  exercises  of  this  nature  in  assem- 
blies exclusively  female  ;  but  that  it  is  designed  to  be  a  gen- 
eral and  permanent  precept,  in  regard  to  mixed  assembhes, 
would  seem  to  be  plain  from  the  reasoning  of  Paul  when  giv- 
ing his  grounds  for  such  a  precejDt ;  see  1  Tim.  2:  13  seq. 
The  reasoning  in  this  case,  is  founded  on  a  permanent  state 
of  things. 

If  now  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  things  about  which 
certain  directions  are  given,  but  which  are  plainly  and  evi- 
dently obligatory  no  longer  than  while  certain  circumstances 
exist ;  why  may  there  not  be  some  books  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, once  well  adapted  to  the  state  of  the  Jews  and  useful 
to  them,  but  which  have  now  become  obsolete  by  reason  of 
the  great  changes  which  Christianity  has  wrought  ?  All  con- 
cede, that  the  Levitical  rites  and  ceremonies  are  done  away  ; 


AS  TO  A  rAET  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      377 

that  circumcision,  and  the  passover,  and  sacrifices  and  obla- 
tions of  every  kind,  iire  no  longer  obligatory.  Of  course  all 
that  part  of  the  Old  Testament  which  prescribes  and  regu- 
lates these  things,  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  practical  moment 
to  us,  but  only  a  portion  of  the  history  of  God's  former  deal- 
ings with  his  church.  AVe  have  no  hesitation  in  adopting  all 
this ;  specially  after  reading  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
principal  object  of  which  is  to  show,  that  a  new  and  better 
covenant  than  the  old  has  been  introduced,  and  one  estab- 
lished on  better  promises  and  of  a  more  liberal  nature.  But 
when  we  have  gone  thus  far,  is  there  any  obstacle  in  th^e  way 
of  taking  one  more  step  ?  May  there  not  have  been  some 
books,  neither  ritual  nor  politico-ecclesiastical,  written  for  the 
time  being  and  the  circumstances  then  existing,  and  which 
were  wisely  adapted  to  do  good  in  this  state  of  things — which 
books,  by  the  introduction  of  a  better  and  more  perfect  sys- 
tem of  religion,  have  become  in  a  good  measure  obsolete,  or  no 
longer  useful  to  us,  because  our  circumstances,  habits,  man- 
ners, and  modes  of  thinking,  are  so  different  from  those  of  the 
Jews  in  their  partially  civilized  state  ?  I  do  not  see  how  this 
question  can  be  confidently  answered  in  the  negative. 

Why  may  it  not  be,  then,  that  the  Canticles  were  written, 
for  Jewish  pietists  of  a  contemplative  order,  and  somewhat  of 
the  temperament  of  the  Essenes,  i.  e.  able  to  control  and 
keep  In  a  state  of  entire  subjection  their  animal  passions  ? 
There  were  doubtless  some  Baxters  and  Thomas  a  Kempises 
among  the  Hebrews ;  we  know  that  there  were  such  men  as 
could  write  the  most  devotional  Psalms.  Might  it  not  have 
been  customary  among  the  Hebrews,  so  to  speak  of  the  mar- 
riage relation  and  its  endearments,  as  not  to  excite  in  them 
the  same  feeling  that  it  is  apt  to  do  among  us,  or  at  least  not 
the  same  in  degree  ?  I  must  take  it  for  granted  that  such 
was  the  case,  when  I  call  to  mind  how  often  Jehovah  employs 
language  of  this  kind,  when  addressing  the  Israelites.  Nay 
more,  I  find  the  same  thing,  to  some  extent,  even  in  the  New- 
Testament,  on  the  part  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles.  It  is  clear 
that  no  indecency  is  intended  ;  and  equally  clear,  as  it  seems 

32* 


378  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

to  me,  that  no  improper  feelings  were  excited  by  the  lan- 
guage in  question,  in  the  minds  of  those»who  were  originally 
addressed.  But  that  time,  those  circumstances,  that  state  of 
manners,  and  those  usages,  all  of  which  contributed  to  render 
imagery  of  the  kind  in  question  harmless,  and  even  useful — 
have  all  passed  away.  Orientals  may  read  Hafiz's  Odes,  and 
the  Loves  of  Megnoun  and  Leilah,  or  may  sing  as  the  Der- 
vishes did  when  Mr.  Lane  heard  them,  and  through  the  force 
of  education  appropriate  to  themselves  religious  nourishment 
from  these  elements.  Why  then  should  they  be  forbidden  to 
them  ?  Why  might  not  the  Jewish  sacred  writers  provide 
for  that  class  of  devotees,  who  could  be  profited  by  this  style 
of  writing?  The  thing  is  neither  impossible  nor  improbable. 
Everything  in  this  matter  depends  on  education  and  custom. 
Is  not  the  Bible  so  written  as  to  offer  somethino^  attractive  to 
all  classes  of  readers,  to  all  kinds  of  taste  that  are  not  in  them- 
selves vicious  ?  If  so,  why  may  not  provision  have  been 
made  to  allure  the  class  of  the  contemplative,  the  devotees  in 
the  East,  and  to  attract  the  attention  of  even  the  Sufi  and  the 
Dervish  ? 

Thus  much,  I  think,  may  fairly  be  said  in  regard  to  the  ex- 
istence and  canonical  rank  of  such  a  work  as  the  Canticles. 
But  now  as  to  the  Occidentals — the  western  world  who  have 
been  christianized,  and  brought  to  a  totally  different  state  of 
manners.  Mixed  society  in  the  East,  is  a  thing  that  time  out 
of  mind  has  never  been  allowed  and  practised.  Hence  their 
freedom  of  language,  in  speaking  of  delicate  matters.  The 
restraints  of  the  female  sex  were  not  felt,  of  course.  Lan- 
guage assumed  a  fuller  tone  without  offence,  where  only  one 
sex  was  present.  But  among  us,  where  both  are  present, 
(a  matter  which  Christianity  has  brought  about,  unspeakably 
to  the  advantage  of  both  sexes),  we  cannot  read  or  sing  the 
Canticles  with  the  same  freedom  as  a  company  of  monks  or 
nuns  could  do.  It  is  well.  For  one,  I  rejoice  in  this  triumph 
of  Christianity  in  prohibiting  everything,  that  may  even  seem 
to  the  unlearned  or  to  the  passionate  as  adapted  to  excite  un- 
hallowed feelings.     Innocent  in  themselves,  with  all  the  need- 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       379 

ful  restraints  and  decorous  limitations,  some  of  these  feelings 
may  in  themselves  be.  But  we  need  no  excitement,  addi- 
tional to  what  by  nature  we  possess,  to  rouse  them.  It  is 
not  best  to  tamper  with  even  a  dubious  matter.  I  have  often 
heard  it  said  by  the  friends  of  Pres.  Edwards,  that  he  was 
peculiarly  fond  of  the  book  of  Canticles,  and  read  and  medi- 
tated much  upon  it.  His  character  for  piety  was  such,  as 
entirely  forbids  the  supposition  that  he  was  secretly  nourish- 
ing his  animal  passions  by  this.  Nay,  I  must  believe  that  if 
he  had  found  such  to  be  the  effect  of  his  reading  Canticles, 
he  would  at  once  have  desisted.  His  example  shows,  then, 
what  is  possible,  and  what  may  be  achieved  by  purified  and 
exalted  feeling.  But  as  such  men  are  not  very  rife  in  these 
days,  and  are  not  likely  to  be  so,  it  is  better  for  those  who 
have  not  attained  an  elevated  state  of  piety  like  his,  to  abstain, 
for  the  most  part,  from  the  book  before  us.  The  reason  lies 
in  our  excitability,  in  consequence  of  our  manners  and  our 
education.  There  is  the  same  reason,  for  substance,  why  we 
should  desist  from  this  book,  as  there  is  why  we  should  cease 
to  hold  obligatory  the  local  and  temporal  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  book  has  had  its  day.  I  venture  to  believe,  that 
many  rejoiced  in  it  and  were  made  glad  by  it.  But  it  was 
only  twilight  when  it  was  written  ;  it  is  now  broad  daylight. 
We  who  know  and  feel  this,  need  not  go  back  to  the  twilight, 
in  order  that  Ave  may  see. 

Still,  there  is  yet  an  oriental  world,  and  one  that  is  to  be 
converted  to  Christianity.  Let  the  book  stand  for  those,  who 
have  been  trained  to  read  Hafiz,  and  Megnoun  and  Leilah, 
and  to  sing  the  odes  of  the  Dervishes,  with  nothing  but  a 
spiritualized  state  of  feeling,  enjoy  the  pleasure  of  finding 
such  a  book  in  the  canon  of  Scripture.  For  us,  men  of  occi- 
dental taste  and  habits,  and  of  only  ordinary  growth  in  piety, 
(to  say  the  best  Ave  well  can), — for  us,  (excepting  the  few 
that  have  reached  the  lofty  heights  of  a  Baxter  or  an  Ed- 
wards), who  hare  a  task  difficult  enough  to  keep  our  passions 
in  due  subjection  even  when  we  shun  all  the  temptation  and 
excitements  that  we  can — it  is  the  safer  and  better  course,  to 


380  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

place  the  Canticles,  as  the  Jews  did,  among  the  c'^t^iia  or 
books  withdrawn  from  ordinary  use,  and  betake  ourselves 
rather  to  the  Psalms,  and  the  Proverbs,  and  the  Prophets, 
and  the  New  Testament.  Canticles,  as  a  means  of  devotion 
— doctrinal  it  surely  is  not — is  superseded  for  us  by  better 
means.  This  is  reason  enough,  independently  of  the  danger 
of  being  excited  in  an  undue  way,  to  prefer  other  parts  of 
the  Scripture.  And  all  this  brings  no  just  reproach  on  Can- 
ticles, any  more  than  the  argument  of  Paul  in  his  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  against  all  the  rites  and  forms  of  the  old  dis- 
pensation, brings  reproach  on  them  while  they  lasted. 

I  am  aware,  that  those  Christians  (and  some  such  there 
are)  who,  because  all  the  Bible  was  written  by  inspiration, 
hold  it  to  be  all  alike  valuable  to  us  and  obligatory  upon  us, 
and  who  read  it  in  course,  even  through  and  through,  in  their 
families,  (and  perhaps  in  the  pulpit),  with  the  best  of  inten- 
tions, will  probably  not  receive  these  remarks  with  much  ap- 
probation. Still,  while  I  doubt  not  that  they  may  mean  right, 
I  am  fully  persuaded  that  their  practice  is  altogether  wrong, 
or  at  least  injudicious.  What  have  we  to  do,  in  the  way  of 
Christian  edification,  with  the  details  of  building  the  taberna- 
cle and  temple ;  with  the  genealogies  and  lists  of  returning 
exiles ;  with  all  the  prescriptions  about  offerings,  libations, 
purifications,  priests,  etc.,  in  the  Levitical  law ;  and  with 
many  a  piece  of  family  or  individual  history  which  developes 
nothing  special  of  a  religious  nature  ?  Even  the  prophecies 
against  Egypt,  Moab,  Edom,  Philistia,  Tyre,  Babylon,  and 
Assyria,  have  but  a  subordinate  interest  for  us.  Why  occupy 
our  public  or  our  family  devotions  with  such  parts  of  the  O. 
Test.  Scriptures  ?  What  moral  and  practical  ideas  would  a 
family  or  a  church  obtain,  from  having  Ezek.  xl — xlviii. 
read  in  course  ?  General  usage  has  decided  all  these  ques- 
tions, among  the  more  intelligent  Christians,  and  decided 
them  rightly.     I  do  not  wish  the  decision  to  be  revoked. 

Nor  is  all  this  saying  one  word  against  the  Canticles,  or 
the  other  parts  of  Scripture  to  which  reference  has  been 
made.     I  have  already  pointed  out  what  use  is  to  be  made  of 


AS  TO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.       381 

such  parts  of  Scripture,  and  what  estimate  is  to  be  put  upon 
them.  I  need  not  repeat  here  what  I  have  already  said. 
The  Avhole  thing  lies  in  a  very  small  compass.  There  was 
an  ancient  preparatory  dispensation — a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come — many  things  were  necessary  to  arrange  and  give  it 
a  successful  trial ;  that  dispensation  has  passed  away,  and 
has  now  comparatively  "  no  glory  by  reason  of  the  glory  that 
excelleth  ;"  and  along  with  it  has  passed  away  all  such  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament  as  were  local  and  temporary — all  which 
belonged  merely  to  Judaism.  Why  can  we  not  receive  the 
simple  truth,  that  the  hand  of  God  was  in  all  these  move- 
ments, and  that  the  same  hand  has  now  introduced  us  to  a 
much  higher  and  better  state,  furnished  us  with  better  means 
of  understanding  truth,  and  of  promoting  our  own  personal 
piety  ? 

Considerations  such  as  these,  and  hke  to  these,  I  would 
most  heartily  commend  to  those  who  are  halting  and  doubting 
in  regard  to  the  book  of  Canticles.  I  do  not  perceive  the 
need  of  such  a  state  of  mind.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  Canti- 
cles were  a  part  of  the  canon  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  Nothing  as  matter  of  fact  in  ancient  criticism  is 
more  certain.  It  is  of  no  use  to  deny  this,  or  to  make  eflforts 
to  evade  it.  Better  is  it  to  meet  it  directly,  and  canvass  the 
whole  matter  with  an  open  and  liberal  and  candid  mind.  If 
the  Orientals  still  want  such  a  book,  let  them  use  it,  as  the 
ancient  Jews  did.  If  the  Occidentals  can  do  better,  on  the 
whole,  without  making  the  use  of  it  public  and  common,  let 
them  have  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel.  Our  preachers,  in  gen- 
eral, have  long  since  ceased  to  make  it  a  text-book  ;  families 
do  not  generally  read  it  in  their  devotions  ;  and  if  the  remarks 
which  I  have  made  above  are  well-founded,  they  are  to  be 
commended  rather  than  blamed  for  this.  The  book  has  had 
its  day  in  the  East,  or  (if  you  insist  upon  it)  is  to  have  it 
there ;  in  the  West,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  must  continue  to 
hold  much  the  same  place  which  general  practice  has  as- 
signed to  it. 

I  cannot  conclude  these  remarks  without  adding,  as  I  have 


382  §  21.    CONSCIENTIOUS  SCRUPLES 

already  hinted,  that  the  perusal  of  the  original  makes  much 
less  impression  on  me  of  an  exceptionable  kind,  than  the  pe- 
rusal of  our  version.  It  is  far  more  delicate,  at  least  to  my 
apprehension.  It  were  easy  to  exhibit  particulars,  which 
would  justify  this  statement.  But  I  refrain  because  of  the 
nature  of  the  case.  That  there  are  many  passages  in  this 
pastoral^  if  any  must  needs  so  call  it,  which  are  highly  beau- 
tiful and  tender  and  delicate,  is  quite  certain.  A  heathen 
poet  who  had  sung  carnal  love  in  like  manner,  would  have 
doubtless  been  immortal  among  the  Cythereans.  But  other 
passages,  which  are  minutely  descriptive  of  the  person  of  the 
bride,  oblige  us  to  look  well  to  the  mastery  of  our  feelings. 
It  needs  something  of  the  tone  of  mind  which  a  Sufi  or  a 
Dervish  attains  to  by  long  and  exclusive  spiritualizing  and 
meditation,  or  (which  is  much  better)  the  elevation  above  all 
that  is  carnal  of  an  Edwards  or  a  Baxter  or  an  Owen,  in  or- 
der to  make  any  spiritual  gain  by  the  exercise.  Something 
might  be  done  to  give  the  book  a  better  dress  than  it  has  in 
our  English  version  ;  but  the  general  state  of  the  case  will  re- 
main as  developed  above.  While  I  would  say,  with  Aben 
Ezra,  Tb'^n  rh'^'^u  to  all  profane  rejection  of  the  book,  I  think 
we  may  say  with  Virgil,  on  a  somewhat  different  occasion  : 
Procul,  O  procul,  este  profani ! 

Is  it  not  strange  that  the  mere  Elenchus  Interpretum  or 
list  of  commentators  on  this  book,  occupies  more  than  twenty 
octavo  pages  in  Rosenmueller's  Commentary  ?  And  I  pre- 
sume he  has  not  recorded  anything  like  the  one  half  of  them. 
Jews,  Christian  fathers,  Romanists,  and  Protestants,  have  all 
rushed  upon  this  little  book,  by  virtue,  as  it  would  seem,  of 
some  mysterious  attraction.  Yet  the  mystery  does  not  pro- 
bably lie  very  deep.  Origen,  as  we  might  expect  from  his 
allegorical  inclinations,  wrote  ten  volumes  of  Comm.  on  Can- 
ticles. "  As  in  other  works  of  his,"  says  Jerome,  *'  he  has 
surpassed  all  other  expositors,  in  this  he  has  outdone  himself." 
"  Here,"  says  he  on  another  occasion  respecting  Origen  in 
this  work,  "  here  he  sails  cum  pleno  veloJ"  We  have  also 
among  these  expositors  an  Ambrose,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  The- 


AS  fO  A  PART  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      383 

odoret,  Cassiodorus,  and  many  other  others.  Among  the 
Romanists  there  is  no  end  of  expositors.  Poor  monks  !  This 
book  was  converted  into  nectar  and  ambrosia  to  refresh  and 
strengthen  them  in  their  mental  revelhngs,  and  to  compensate 
in  some  measure  for  the  loss  of  reahties.  So  they  rushed  by 
troops  to  the  prey.  Germans  (as  we  should  expect),  French- 
men not  a  few  (as  we  should  spontaneously  conjecture),  even 
Englishmen,  although  with  some  good  degree  of  sobriety  in 
most  cases,  and  last  of  all  the  very  Dutchmen,  have  revelled 
in  this  book  ;  for  what  else  shall  I  say  of  the  matter  of  many  of 
the  commentaries  that  have  been  produced  ?  There  are,  not 
improbably,  a  class  of  occasional  readers  of  the  Bible,  who 
would  sooner  give  up  any  book  belonging  to  it  than  this. 
Their  real  reasons  for  this  preference,  they  would  not  per- 
haps be  fond  of  proclaiming. 

Christianity,  then,  with  that  state  of  manners  and  society 
which  it  has  introduced,  has  changed  our  relation  to  many 
things  belonging  to  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  All 
concede  this,  as  to  rites  and  forms  and  peculiarities  of  the 
Levitical  worship  and  purifications.  We  have  no  temple  at 
Jerusalem  ;  no  assemblages  there  to  kill  the  passover,  to  cele- 
brate sacred  feasts,  and  to  hear  the  Law  once  in  seven  years. 
We  have  it  every  Sabbath,  we  may  read  it  every  day.  It 
costs  but  a  pittance  to  put  it  in  our  possession — the  fruit  of  a 
single  day's  labour,  at  most,  will  accomplish  this,  for  the  poorer 
classes  ;  while  a  pious  Jew,  to  obtain  the  same  privileges,  must 
almost  have  expended  a  handsome  little  fortune.  The  conse- 
quence of  all  this  is,  a  state  of  things  and  of  manners  exceeding- 
ly different  from  that  of  ancient  times.  It  does  not  follow,  that 
all  which  was  permissible,  or  available,  or  useful  then,  is  of 
course  so  now.  Even  some  books,  which  are  not  conversant 
with  Hebrew  rites  and  forms,  are  not  of  course  profitable  to 
us,  as  they  were,  or  at  any  rate  might  have  been,  to  them. 
Why  should  we  lay  stress  on  these,  and  urge  them  into  pre- 
sent usage,  when  little  or  no  moral  gain,  comparatively,  is  to 
be  made  from  them  ?  I  hesitate  not  for  a  moment  to  say, 
that  we  should  not.     Let  them  be — specially  let  the  Can- 


384  §  21.  CONSCIENTIOUS  scruples' 

tides  be — for  Oriental  Christians,  brought  up  very  diffe- 
rently from  us.  I  doubt  not  that  many  of  them  might  find 
spiritual  food,  instead  of  poison,  in  them.  At  all  events,  we 
may  consent  to  let  a  book  stand  where  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles found  it  and  left  it,  and  against  which  they  have  nowhere 
testified,  but,  on  the  contrary  sanctioned  it  in  connection  with 
other  Old  Testament  books.  It  is  safe  for  the  doubting  and 
wavering  at  least  to  let  it  alone.  If  they  find  that  they  cannot 
safely  read  it,  they  are  bound  to  let  it  alone  ;  at  least  I  should 
not  hesitate  in  my  own  case. 

All  things  considered,  we  may  settle  down,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  in  the  conclusion,  that  the  Canticles  is  a  book  rather  to 
be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  local  one,  and  adapted  to  partial 
usage,  than  as  a  book  now,  under  the  full  light  of  the  gospel, 
specially  adapted  to  our  use.     It  had  its  day.     That  its  use 
was  religious,  I  cannot  doubt,  from  the  company  in  which  it 
is  found,  and  the  ordeal  through  which   it  has  passed  among 
the  founders  of  Christianity.     It  may  have  still  another  day 
of  usefulness,  among  the  Asiatics.     Let  us  not  disown  it,  or 
set  it  aside.     But  persons  of  timid  consciences,  who  have  an 
idea,  that,  since  all  parts  of  Scri2:)ture  are  inspired,  they  all 
must  of  course  be  equally  useful,  may  be  set  free  from  this 
bondage.     Are  we  to  hold  that  the  sketches  of  tabernacle  and 
temple  buildings,  of  ritual  ordinances  and  customs,  and  cata- 
logues of  names  and  places,  are  as  edifying  as  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  or  the  Gospels,  or  the  Psalms  ?     If  we  answer 
in  the  negative,  then  I  would  ask,  whether,  in  other  compo- 
sitions, once  adapted  to  the  state  of  things  then  existing,  there 
may  not  be  a  lack  of  former  usefulness,  since  the  light  of  the 
Gospel  has  become  fully  diffused  ?     As  I  have  once  said,  I 
would  say  again :  May  not  a  star,  that  once  shone  brightly 
in  the  dim  twilight,  become  no  longer  visible  when  the  sun  is 
shining  in  his  strength  ?     But  why  should  we  deny  that  it 
has  once  shone,  and  that  it  is  still  a  star  ? 

I  have  not  undertaken  to  decide,  exactly  of  what  tenor  the 
spiritual  exegesis  of  Canticles  should  be.  It  is  a  question  of 
no  small  difficulty.     Does  it  refer  to  the  church  as  a  body  ? 


§  22.    USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  385 

Or  is  it  to  be  applied  to  the  converse  of  the  soul  with  God, 
and  the  delight  of  communing  with  him  ?  If  oriental  analogy 
may  speak,  on  this  occasion,  it  would  hft  up  its  voice  in  favour 
of  the  latter.  This  I  also  prefer,  because  I  can  hardly  re- 
gai-d  the  book  of  Canticles  in  the  hght  of  a  series  of  'predic- 
tions respecting  a  future  Christian  church.  As  far  as  what 
pertains  to  individuals,  who  are  pious,  is  common  to  the 
church,  whether  Jewish,  or  Christian,  so  far  Canticles  maybe 
applied  to  the  characteristics  of  the  church,  ancient  or  mod- 
ern. But  to  me  it  seems  better  and  firmer  ground,  to  regard 
the  Canticles  as  expressing  the  warm  and  earnest  desire  of 
the  soul  after  God,  in  language  borrowed  from  that  which 
characterizes  chaste  affection  between  the  sexes.  But  this 
is  not  the  place  to  vindicate  an  opinion  of  this  nature. 

§  22.  Use  of  the  Old  Testament  under  the  Gospel  Dispensation, 

The  most  diflScult  and  delicate  part  of  my  task  remains. 
In  many  respects  this  is  also  the  most  important ;  for  it  is  the 
practical  result  of  all  which  has  been  hitherto  laid  before  the 
reader  and  defended. 

Where  shall  a  Christian  teacher  or  reader  draw  the  line 
between  what  is  abrogated  in  the  Old  Testament,  hy  the 
comifig  of  Christ  and  hy  the  revelation  of  his  will  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  that  which  remains  in  full  force,  and  to 
which  appeal  may  he  made  as  heing  at  the  present  time  of  di- 
vine authority  and  obligation  ? 

If  by  this  question  is  meant,  a  requisition  to  draw  a  boun- 
dary line  between  the  two,  which  is  always  practically  palpa- 
ble, and  always  visible  and  plain  even  to  the  weakest  eye,  no 
intelligent  and  considerate  man  would  undertake  the  task. 
The  New  Testament  has  passed  sentence  of  abrogation  on 
no  specific  book,  or  part  of  a  book,  as  such,  which  is  contain- 
ed in  the  Old  Testament.  To  its  decision,  viewed  as  desig- 
nating this  or  that  particular  portion  or  book  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  no  longer  having  authority  to  decide  matters  per- 
taining to  religion  for  us,  we  cannot  appeal.     All  which  it 

33 


886  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

has  done  is  to  lay  down  and  establish  general  principles.^  by 
the  aid  of  which  we  must  decide  what  still  remains  obligatory, 
and  what  is  virtually  repealed. 

The  ultimate  appeal,  then,  is  to  understanding  and  reason ; 
not  in  order  to  esii\}oY\sh.ihQ  principles  in  question,  for  Christ  and 
his  apostles  have  established  them,  but  to  make  a  discrimina- 
ting and  judicious  use  of  these  principles,  in  determining  what 
still  remains  in  full  force.  So  does  the  Bible  in  respect  to  its 
interpretation.  It  narrates,  it  commands,  it  threatens,  it  promi- 
ses, it  encourages,  it  consoles,  it  holds  out  views  of  a  futare  state 
of  reward  and  punishment ;  but  the  language  in  which  all  this 
is  done,  is  addressed  to  men  in  the  usual  way,  and  they  are 
expected  to  give  it  a  rational  interpretation.  The  Bible 
teaches  no  system  of  hermeneutics  ;  it  instructs  no  one  in  the 
principles  of  rhetoric  ;  it  never  descants  on  the  use  of  figura- 
tive language ;  it  never  lays  down  any  theory  of  exegesis 
which  may  serve  as  a  certain  guide  to  those  who  become  ac- 
quainted with  it.  All  these  are  presupposed  to  be  under- 
stood or  felt  by  the  readers ;  and  then  it  is  expected  of  them, 
that  by  their  discrimination  and  judgment,  they  should  give  a 
sound  interpretation. 

Exactly  like  to  this  is  the  case  before  us.  The  new  Dispen- 
sation is  fully  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament.  Its  depart- 
ures from  the  pecuharities  of  the  Jewish  religion,  its  true 
spiritual  nature,  its  universality,  its  freedom  from  all  pomp 
and  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  (if  the  word  had  not  been 
abused  I  might  say,  in  a  good  sense),  its  cosmopolitism,  stand 
in  high  relief  upon  the  portico  of  the  new  temple  w^hich  has 
been  erected.  On  the  very  foundation  stones  of  this  temple 
are  inscribed,  in  letters  so  plain  that  he  who  runneth  may 
read :  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship  him, 
MUST  vp^ORSHiP  him  IN  SPIRIT  AND  IN  Truth.  On  the  next 
tier  of  foundation  stones  stands  inscribed,  in  letters  equally 
plain  and  prominent :  The  Father  seeketh  such  wor- 
shippers.    On  the  third  stands  the  inscription  :  The  hour 

is  COJIE  AYHEN    neither  ON  the    MOUNTAIN    OF  SaMARIA, 

nor  OF  Jerusalem,  are  men  required  to  worship. 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  387 

This  last  inscription  contains  the  germ  of  all  that  I  have  or 
wish  to  say.  The  two  former  inscriptions  were  virtually  en- 
gi'aved  of  old  on  the  Jewish  temple.  But  they  were  in  the 
Sanctum  Sanctorum,  and  common  worshippers  rather  heard 
indistinctly  of  them,  than  saw  them.  On  the  temple  of  the 
new  Jerusalem  they  stand,  as  I  have  said,  in  relief  so  high, 
and  prominent,  that  no  worshipper  who  approaches  can  fail  to 
see  them,  unless  he  shuts  his  eyes. 

It  is  the  third  inscription  which  we  are  now  called  to  read 
and  interpret.  Let  us  address  ourselves  to  this  grave  and 
interesting  task,  with  becoming  seriousness  and  candour. 

All  social  religion,  under  the  Mosaic  code,  centered  in  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  and  its  ordinances.  The  claims  of  the 
Samaritans  to  make  their  mountain  the  central  point  of  all 
religious  rites  and  services,  was  settled  by  the  Saviour  him- 
self, in  his  conversation  with  the  Samaritan  woman  :  "Ye  wor- 
ship ye  know  not  what . . .  for  salvation  is  of  the  Jews."  We 
may  therefore  dismiss  mount  Gerizim,  and  all  its  pretended 
services,  from  any  further  consideration. 

To  declare  that  men  should  no  longer  worship  the  Father 
at  Jerusalem,  is  to  declare  that  the  whole  system  of  Jewish 
social  worship,  with  all  its  pomp,  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  its 
sacrifices  and  oblations,  is  abrogated.  What  made  the  Jew- 
ish religion  peculiar  and  appropriate  only  to  one  nation,  was 
its  locality  and  its  externals.  From  its  very  nature  the  Jew- 
ish religion  could  belong  only  to  one  nation.  Three  times  in 
each  year  were  all  the  males  of  the  nation  to  appear  before 
God  in  Jerusalem.  Once  in  seven  years  the  whole  popula- 
tion, men,  women,  and  children,  were  to  go  up  thither  to  hear 
the  Law.  How  could  Judaism  be  a  practicable  religion,  ex- 
cept to  a  small  nation  within  very  circumscribed  limits  ?  It 
was  plainly  impossible. 

This  solves  the  great  problem  contained  in  the  question  : 
Why  was  not  the  Jewish  rehgion  aggressive  ?  Why  did  not 
the  pious  part  of  the  Hebrew  community  send  missionaries  to 
the  heathen,  and  endeavour  to  convert  them  ?    Jonah  once 


388  §  22.    tJSE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA3IENT 

preached  abroad  with  signal  success ;  why  did  not  the  Jewish 
prophets  repeat  the  experiment  ? 

Without  attempting  to  assign  all  the  reasons  which  they 
had  for  abstaining  from  attempts  of  this  nature,  I  merely  re- 
mark, that  the  prophets  could  not  fail  of  seeing,  that  an  ex- 
tensive prevalence  of  the  Jewish  religion  would  involve  im- 
possibilities. How  could  the  Hindoos  and  the  Chinese  re- 
pair thrice  in  a  year  to  Jerusalem  ?  How  could  the  popula- 
tion of  a  world  assemble  in  one  small  city,  which  never  could 
have  contained  much  over  one  hundred  thousand  inhabitants, 
if  indeed  so  many  can  be  supposed  ?  The  prophets  knew, 
by  circumstances  such  as  these,  that  God  did  not  design  Ju- 
daism for  a  universal  religion.  Consequently  they  engaged 
in  no  foreign  missionary  enterprises,  and  never  exhibited 
any  special  zeal  for  the  conversion  of  the  heathen. 

We  come  then  to  the  great  question,  which  is  the  nucleus 
of  the  whole  matter :  What  is  there  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  belongs  to  Judaism  as  such  ;  and  what  is  there  which 
belongs  to  the  nature  of  true  religion,  at  all  times, 
among  cdl  nations,  and  in  all  places  ? 

That  which  belongs  merely  to  Judaism  as  such,  is  wholly 
abolished  by  the  Gospel.  What  belongs  to  all  nations 
IS  FULLY  RETAINED.  The  proper  application  of  these  two 
simple  principles,  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  this  whole  subject.  The  task  needs,  indeed,  some 
good  measure  of  discrimination  and  judgment.  In  some  few 
cases  it  needs  a  more  than  ordinary  knowledge  of  both  the 
Jewish  and  the  Christian  religion.  But  in  the  main,  the 
thing  can  be  made  intelligible  to  all ;  and  it  may  fairly  be 
considered  as  feasible  for  the  mass  of  Christians  even  tolera- 
bly well  instructed,  to  draw  the  lines  of  separation  in  most  of 
the  important  cases. 

The  Jewish  dispensation  was  introductory.  To  use  the 
expressive  language  of  Paul :  "  The  Law  was  the  shadow  of 
good  things  to  come,  and  was  not  the  very  image  of  those 
things."  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  substance  of  all 
that  I  aim  at  saying  is  fully  exhibited.     There  we  are  most 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  389 

explicitly  taught,  that  all  the  rites  and  ceremonies  and  sacri- 
fices of  the  Jewish  dispensation  were  utterly  inefficient  in. 
themselves  to  remove  the  burden  of  sin  from  the  conscience, 
or  to  cancel  the  guilt  of  the  offender.  It  is  not  possible  that 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  shoidd  talce  aivay  sin.  And 
again  :  "Sacrifice  and  the  burnt-offerings  and  sin-offerings  thou 
wouldest  not,  neither  hadst  pleasure  therein."  So  even  the 
prophets  of  old  said  to  the  formalists  and  the  ritualists  among 
the  Jews.  But  there  lay  at  the  basis  of  all  the  rites  and  sa- 
crifices of  the  old  dispensation,  an  important  principle,  a  pre- 
figuration  of  tlie  great  and  leading  truth  of  the  Gospel,  viz., 
that  withoid  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  7'emission  of  sin. 
But  that  blood  "  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world," 
was  not  the  blood  of  bullocks  and  of  goats,  but  "  the  blood  of 
Christ,  who,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  with- 
out spot  to  God,  that  he  might  purge  our  consciences  from 
dead  works,  to  serve  the  living  God."  Of  this  great  atoning 
*  sacrifice,'  all  the  victims  slain  at  the  altar  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, were  only  symbols  or  types.  The  pious  Jew,  who 
presented  the  sacrifices  in  question,  if  he  presented  them  with 
a  penitent  and  believing  mind,  might  obtain  remission  of  his 
sins,  even  spiritual  remission.  Yet  not  by  virtue  merely  of 
his  sacrifices,  but  only  by  virtue  of  that  which  they  symbol- 
ized. Even  the  impenitent  Jew,  who  complied  with  the  let- 
ter of  the  Mosaic  law,  might  and  did  obtain  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical remission.  And  this  was  all  that  any  rites,  ceremo- 
nies, or  sacrifices,  could  ever  procure  in  themselves  for  any 
one. 

That  all  this  scheme  of  the  Jewish  ritual  was,  and  was  de- 
signed to  be,  symbolic  and  typiccd  of  a  new  and  better  state 
or  dispensation,  must  be  conceded,  as  it  seems  to  me,  by  every 
candid  mind.  The  utter  inefficacy  of  all  sacrifices  of  beasts 
to  lighten  the  burdened  conscience  or  to  atone  for  sin,  is  a 
matter  past  all  question.  Then  for  what  purpose  did  the  di- 
vine Being  institute  such  a  religion  as  that  of  Moses  ?  No 
answer  can  be  given  to  this  question,  which  is  reasonable  and 
satisfactory,  except  it  be,  that    God  designed  all  these  things 

33* 


390  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA^MENT 

to  he  'prefciratory  to  another  and  better  dispensation.  It  is 
then,  and  only  then,  when  we  adflfiit  this,  that  any  signifi- 
cancy  or  importance  is  attached  to  the  Jewish  rehgion,  so  far 
as  all  its  externals  are  concerned.  In  every  other  point  of 
view,  it  would  be  little  more  than  solemn  trijfiing.  Mr.  Nor- 
ton, who  denies  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  all  the  prophetic 
anticipations  of  him  and  his  sacrifice,  must  of  course  think 
very  meanly  of  the  Jewish  religion.  The  contemptuous 
manner  in  which  he  repeatedly  adverts  to  the  Levitical  rit- 
ual, shows  clearly  that  such  is  the  state  of  his  feelings.  Be- 
lieving, as  he  undoubtedly  does  and  should  do,  that  no  blood 
of  bulls  or  of  goats  can  take  away  sin,  and  acknowledging  no 
sjonbolic  and  typical  design  in  the  Jewish  offerings  and  sac- 
rifices— what  remains  but  to  draw  the  conclusion,  that  the 
whole  fabric  was  one  reared  merely  by  superstition  ?  How 
different  from  this  is  the  view  of  the  thorough  believer  in 
God's  ancient  revelation !  He  sees  in  all  the  rites  and  forms 
of  the  temple,  and  all  the  purifications  of  temple-worshippers, 
the  symbols  of  the  all  important  and  distinguishing  truths  of 
the  Gospel. 

The  way  seems  now  to  be  prepared  for  further  progress. 
Tabernacle  and  temple  are  no  more.  Jerusalem  is  no  longer 
our  spiritual  metropolis.  God's  temple  is  everywhere,  on  the 
land  and  on  the  sea.  The  whole  earth  is  its  area,  and  its 
vaulted  roof  is  the  arch  of  heaven  lighted  up  with  its  suns 
and  stars.  The  sacrifices  and  oblations  now  accepted  and  re- 
quired, are  only  a  broken,  contrite,  grateful  heart.  No  hyssop 
branch  nor  sprinkling  priest  has  any  office  of  lustration  to  per- 
form. No  priest  is  needed  to  sprinkle  the  altar  with  blood  ;  no 
high  priest  to  remove  the  veil  and  enter  the  most  holy  place. 
Christians  are  all  kings  and  are  all  priests  unto  God,  as  to 
privileges  and  as  to  rank  ;  whilst  the  peculiar  offices  of  ancient 
kings  and  priests  are  no  more  connected  with  the  church. 

The  high  road,  therefore,  in  which  we  are  to  travel,  while 
searching  out  Old  Test,  ground,  is  plain  and  straight  and 
broad.  All  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  that  pertains  to  rites 
and  forms  of  worship,  to  sacrifices  and  oblations,  to  washings 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  391 

and  purifications,  to  meats  clean  and  unclean,  to  feasts  annual 
or  monthly,  to  circumcision  and  to  the  passover — all  which  is 
comprised  within  these,  and  all  which  are  accidents  or  things 
attached  to  them  or  dependent  upon  them — all  of  this  is  ab- 
rogated, is  repealed.  It  remains  now  only  as  the  history  of 
what  is  past,  not  the  rule  of  action  for  the  present  or  the  fu- 
ture. And  in  this  point  of  view,  it  will  always  be  interesting 
to  the  pious  reader.  It  will  unfold  to  him,  in  what  manner 
divine  Providence  has  been  educating  the  human  race ;  by 
what  slow  and  cautious  steps  religion  has  advanced,  and  how 
utterly  impossible  it  is  for  a  religion  that  abounds  in  rites  and 
forms  to  make  much  effectual  progress  anywhere,  either 
among  Jews  or  Gentiles ;  still  more  impossible  that  it  should 
be  a  religion  to  convert  the  world.  God  had  reserved  that 
work  for  his  own  dear  Son. 

It  is  easy  for  us,  in  view  of  what  we  may  see  from  our  pre- 
sent stand-point,  to  account  for  it,  that  Paul  rebuked  so 
sharply  the  Galatian  Judaizers.  The  whole  system  of  Le- 
vitical  rites  and  ordinances,  compared  with  the  truly  Chi'istian 
and  spiritual  service,  he  names  a  bondage  under  the  elements 
of  the  world.  That  Christians,  having  once  tasted  the  sweets 
of  gospel-liberty,  should  turn  back  to  these  elements,  rouses 
even  his  indignation.  "  How,"  says  he  in  the  strength  of  his 
displeasure — "  how  turn  ye  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly 
elements,  whereunto  ye  desire  to  be  in  bondage  ?"  The  law, 
he  tells  them,  was  only  "  a  school-master  to  bring  them  unto 
Christ."  And  when  they  are  introduced  to  him,  he  is  the 
only  master  by  whom  they  are  to  be  guided. 

All,  then,  which  is  merely  external  in  religion,  everything 
pertaining  to  mere  manner  of  worship,  either  as  to  prepara- 
tion for  it  by  ritual  observances,  or  as  to  the  costume  in  which 
it  is  offered,  or  the  place  where,  or  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
offered,  is  all  repealed.  Along  with  this,  too,  must  be  classed 
all  the  statutes  and  ordinances  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
pertain  merely  to  the  form  of  the  Jewish  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  state.  The  substantial  relations  of  individuals  to  the 
church  of  God  and  to  the  civil  government,  have  indeed  suf- 


392  §  22.    USE    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

fered  no  change,  and  never  can  be  changed  while  the  nature 
of  man  continues  to  be  what  it  is.  But  the  manner  in  which 
these  relations  are  to  be  indicated  or  developed,  is  for  the 
most  part  greatly  changed  by  the  Gospel. 

We  are  not  obliged  to  arrange  our  civil  government  after 
the  model  of  the  Jewish ;  and  as  to  priesthood,  in  its  distinctive 
character  as  offering  sacrifices  and  prescribing  external  puri- 
fications, it  is  forever  done  away.  It  is  surprising  to  see  how 
frequent  mistakes  are  among  writers  even  of  the  present  day, 
in  relation  to  this  matter.  A  priesthood,  in  the  literal  sense, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  out  of  all  question.  It  is 
only  in  the  figurative  sense  that  Christians  are  priests,  as 
well  as  kings  ;  and,  let  it  be  noted  well — they  are  all  priests. 
There  is  no  distinct  order  among  them.  A  priest's  business 
was  to  prepare  and  present  offerings  and  sacrifices ;  to  solve 
doubts  and  difficulties  about  ritual  observances  and  concerning 
clean  and  unclean ;  but  he  was  no  religious  teacher  in  the 
higher  sense,  no  preacher,  no  public  guide  or  exemplar  in 
prayer,  no  minister  of  instruction  with  regard  to  the  spiritual 
duties  of  devotion  and  piety  in  general.  What  has  been  said 
in  the  former  part  of  this  work  in  relation  to  priest  and  pro- 
phet, abundantly  establishes  all  this.  The  prophets  were 
the  only  order  of  men,  in  ancient  times,  who  can  be  compared 
with  the  ministers  of  the  gospel.  In  all  the  New  Testament, 
often  as  the  various  classes  of  officers  in  the  church  are  men- 
tioned or  alluded  to,  such  a  class  as  literal  priests  never  once 
occurs.  The  great  High  Priest  has  made  an  end  forever  of 
all  the  rites  of  the  priesthood,  by  offering  up  a  sacrifice,  in 
which  all  of  this  nature  that  could  be  needed,  was  consum- 
mated and  fulfilled.  All  reasoning  from  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood then  to  the  Christian  ministry,  is  out  of  question.  It  is 
without  any  foundation  ;  and  mistake  and  error  are  inevitable, 
where  it  is  carried  to  any  considerable  extent. 

All  the  arrangements  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  respect 
the  investitures  and  forms  of  office,  civil  or  ecclesiastical, 
among  the  Hebrews,  are  of  no  binding  force  upon  us.  All  in 
their  statutes  and  ordinances  which  respected  merely  the 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  S93 

earthly  Canaan  as  their  land  of  promise,  which  related  to 
their  inheritances,  their  modes  of  acquiring  or  parting  with 
property  ;  all  that  pertained  to  dress,  manners,  customs  (not  of 
an  ethical  nature),  houses,|furniture,  arts,  occupations,  and  the 
like  ;  in  one  word,  all  that  belongs  to  the  external  and  physical, 
whether  of  convenience  or  inconvenience ;  all  this  is  done 
away,  i.  e.  it  is  no  longer  binding  on  us.  It  has  now  become 
the  history  of  what  God's  ancient  people  did,  and  how  they 
demeaned  themselves,  and  what  were  their  outward  circum- 
stances ;  but  not  a  rule  of  action  for  us,  or  an  exemplar  of  the 
condition  in  which  we  must  place  ourselves. 

I  am  aware  that  some  difficult  questions  may  be  raised,  in 
respect  to  the  metes  and  bounds  of  political,  civil,  and  eccle- 
siastical laws,  ordinances,  or  arrangements.  For  example : 
Shall  we  have  a  monarchy,  because  the  Jews  had  one  ?  My 
answer  to  this  would  be,  that  Moses  wished  for  no  such  thing ; 
he  merely  made  provision  to  regulate  it,  in  case  it  should  be 
established.  Samuel  opposed  a  monarchy ;  God  himself  se- 
verely reproved  the  Jews  for  desiring  it ;  1  Sam.  viii.  On 
the  other  hand ;  we  cannot  deny  that  David  was  set  over  the 
Jews  as  king,  with  special  divine  approbation.  But  is  a  re- 
public on  this  account  unlawful  ?  One  method  of  arguing,  in 
this  case,  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  equally  good  with  the 
other.  In  fact  it  is  so  ;  but  then,  neither  mode  exhibits  the 
least  force  of  argument.  What  the  Jews  did,  or  did  not,  in  their 
civil  and  social  capacity,  is  nothing  to  us,  except  as  a  matter 
of  history.  It  may  be  very  useful  to  us  in  the  way  of  teach- 
ing us  what  consequences  are  connected  with  certain  modes 
of  government,  or  of  administration,  so  that  we  may  learn 
to  imitate  or  avoid,  as  the  case  may  require.  Our  ohUgation 
to  follow  them  politically,  amounts  to  nothing. 

If  this  be  correct,  (as  plainly  it-  is),  can  any  more  obliga- 
tion, then,  be  shown  to  follow  them  ecclesiastically  ?  I  should 
answer  this  question  almost  as  readily  as  the  other.  Their 
ecclesiastical  state  was  so  implicated  and  connected  with  their 
civil  ordinances,  that  they  could  not  be  separated.  Their 
government,   whether  under  Judges,  Kings,  or  Priests,  was 


394  §  22.    USE    OF   THE    OLD    TESTA31ENT 

theocratical.  The  State  was  the  Church,  and  the  Church  the 
State.  All  persons  initiated  into  their  civil  community  were 
initiated  into  their  ecclesiastical  one,  at  the  same  time.  Cir- 
cumcision was  the  seal  of  admission  to  both.  Hence  all  the 
males  that  were  circumcised,  were  Jewish  church-members, 
and  at  the  same  time  Jewish  citizens.  (I  do  not  take  into 
view  the  slaves  or  servants,  in  this  case.)  As  a  matter  of 
course,  all  citizens  were  cJmrch-memhers. 

But  can  we  carry  over  the  analogy  into  Christian  commu- 
nities ?  It  has  been  done.  The  Romish  church  virtually 
acknowledge  the  principle  as  obligatory.  So  does  the  En- 
lish  national  church  ;  so  do  the  Lutheran  churches  generally 
in  Europe.  But  would  not  the  argument  be  equally  valid,  in 
respect  to  all  the  fasts  and  feasts  and  holidays  and  sacrifices 
and  oblations  and  purifications  of  the  Hebrews  ?  Surely  it 
would  ;  and  so  the  Judaizers  of  Paul's  day  actually  argued. 
But  what  was  his  rely  ?  The  epistles  to  the  Romans,  G-ala- 
tians,  and  Hebrews,  answer  this  question. 

Must  we  say,  that  all  children  are  to  be  baptized,  because 
the  Jewish  children  were  all  circumcised  ?  How  then  shall 
w^e  make  out  the  all,  in  this  latter  case  ?  None  but  male 
children  were  circumcised.  Then  again  all  servants,  i.  e. 
slaves,  were  also  to  be  circumcised.  What  becomes  of  the 
analogy  then  ?  It  is  out  of  question  to  maintain  it ;  at  least 
in  any  tolerably  strict  sense.  Besides  ;  what  is  plainer,  than 
that  the  Jewish  males  and  servants  were  all  to  be  circumci- 
sed, in  order  that  all  might  be  engrafted  into  the  politico-ec- 
clesiastical community  ?  Every  citizen  was  bound  by  reli- 
gious as  well  as  civil  ordinances  ;  and  circumcision  subjected 
him  to  both.  But  Christianity,  adapted  to  all  countries, 
times,  and  nations,  of  necessity  gives  up  the  idea  of  regulating 
ihefonns  of  government,  find  all  that  pertains  to  customs  and 
manners  in  regard  to  things  indifferent,  or  not  of  a  moral  na- 
ture. "  The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  not  of  this  world." 
A  body  politic,  in  its  view,  is  not  of  course  a  body  ecclesias- 
tic. Above  all  we  may  say,  the  New  Testament  commits 
no  power  over  the  church  as  such,  to  the  body  poUtic.     How 


TENDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  395 

could  It  ?  If  it  had  so  done,  then  Nero  must  have  been  Pon^ 
tifex  Maximus  for  the  Christian  church,  in  Paul's  day.  And 
not  unlike  to  this,  so  far  as  principle  is  concerned,  is  the  doc- 
trine that  kings  and  potentates  are  now  the  head  of  the  church 
in  Christian  countries.  Were  even  Jewish  kings  the  head  of 
the  Jewish  church,  and  because  they  were  kings  ?  I  trust 
not.  Where  then  is  the  present  right  of  kings  to  such  a 
place  ?  They  do  not  obtain  any  patent  for  this  from  the 
Jewish  institutions.  Most  surely  they  do  not  find  it  in  the 
New  Testament.  They  obtain  it  only  by  virtue  of  papal 
example.  Henry  the  eighth  usurped  the  pope's  place,  and 
his  heirs  have  inherited  what  he  usurped.  And  what  is  the 
necessary  consequence?  It  is  that  a  Charles  II.  and  a 
George  IV.  have  been  the  supreme  Head  of  the  national 
church  of  Great  Britain.  A  consequence  fitly  joined  with 
the  arguments  by  which  the  whole  matter  is  supported. 

How  unwary,  too,  are  many  excellent  men,  in  contending 
for  infant  baptism,  on  the  ground  of  the  Jewish  analogy  of 
circumcision  !  Are  females  not  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ? 
And  again,  are  a  man's  slaves  to  be  all  baptized  because  he 
is  ?  Are  they  church-members  of  course,  when  they  are  so 
baptized  ?  Is  there  no  difference  between  engrafting  into  a 
politico-ecclesiastical  community,  and  into  one  of  which  it  is 
said,  that  "it  is  not  of  this  world  ?"  In  short,  numberless 
difficulties  present  themselves  in  our  way,  as  soon  as  we  be- 
gin to  argue  in  such  a  manner  as  this. 

The  doctrine  that  a  civil  power  is  of  course  in  some  good 
measure  an  ecclesiastical  one,  is  merely  an  Old  Testament 
and  Jewish  doctrine,  not  one  which  belongs  to  the  New.  It 
may,  it  does,  suit  well  the  ambitious  and  aggrandizing  views 
of  kings  and  potentates,  to  be  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
churches,  to  manage  all  their  concerns,  to  have  at  their  dispo- 
sal all  ecclesiastical  places  of  profit  and  honour,  and  to  direct 
matters  in  such  a  way,  that  all  the  measures  of  the  churches 
shall  tend  to  establish  and  secure  their  power  and  influence. 
Hence  the  eagerness  with  which  they  cleave  to  this  arrange- 
ment, and  their  aversion  to  any  interference  with  claims  on 


896  §  22.   USE   OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

their  part  of  this  nature.  But  the  will  and  wishes  of  kings 
and  princes  and  popes  is  one  thing ;  the  precepts  and  doc- 
trines of  the  Great  Head  of  the  church  are  quite  another. 

Of  all  the  analogical  reasoning  from  the  ancient  dispensa- 
tion to  the  new,  that  which  respects  the  rights  of  kings  and 
priests  has  been  the  most  mischievous,  and  is  the  most  falla- 
cious. Constantine  paved  the  way  for  all  that  has  been  as- 
sumed by  civil  potentates,  since  his  time.  The  dark  ages 
concentrated  all  power,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  in  the  Roman 
pontiff.  Luther,  that  morning  star  of  the  Reformation,  dis- 
solved the  spell  of  false  doctrine,  which  laid  to  sleep  the  spir- 
itual energies  of  all  the  churches.  The  political  relations  of 
the  church,  however,  he  never  touched.  He  left  her  with  as 
many  popes  as  there  were  kings  and  petty  princes  in  Ger- 
many, or  elsewhere.  ZuingU,  and  Calvin,  and  Knox  under- 
stood this  matter  much  better,  but  were  able  only  partially  to 
effect  what  they  wished.  Another  Luther  is  needed  in  Eu- 
rope ;  not  merely  to  free  the  church  from  the  spirit  of  rites 
and  ceremonies,  and  penances  and  pilgrimages,  and  self  right- 
eousness and  formality,  but  to  free  it  from  all  that  domination 
which  has  no  right  to  control  it.  Am  I  reproached  with  be- 
ing rejyuhlican  in  these  views,  and  with  proclaiming  my  own 
particular  politics  rather  than  the  New  Testament  ?  My  an- 
swer is,  that  I  belong  to  a  commonwealth,  where  "  all  are 
kings  and  priests  ;"  to  one  also,  "  where  there  is  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek,  bond  nor  free.  Barbarian  nor  Scythian,"  but 
where  "  all  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  I  belong  to  a  republic, 
one  of  whose  fundamental  laws  is,  that  I  "  should  call  no 
man  Master  on  earth."  "VVe  are  not  forbidden  to  do  this  in  a 
civil  sense ;  such  is  no  part  of  the  Saviour's  meaning.  It  is 
in  a  religious  sense,  that  we  are  to  acknowledge  no  supreme 
head  of  the  church,  except  him  who  redeemed  it. 

It  is  true,  I  am  a  republican  even  in  matters  of  civil  gov- 
ernment. But  I  am  no  bigot  to  this  or  to  any  other  particu- 
lar form  of  civil  government.  AIL  governments  cannot  be 
alike  in  all  respects,  so  long  as  nations  differ  so  much  from 
each  other  in  cultivation,  habits,  and  manners.     I  beheve, 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  39f 

too,  that  in  general  the  best  government  is  that  which  is  best 
administered.  I  speak  disparagingly  of  no  monarchist,  pro- 
vided he  is  not  a  sycophant  to  those  in  power.  But  I  do  not 
envy  him  his  opinions,  and  cannot  gratulate  him  on  the 
ground  of  his  political  relations. 

But  to  my  immediate  object.  All  claims  on  the  Old  Test- 
ament for  the  support  of  civil  domination  over  the  spiritual 
kingdom  of  Christ,  are  futile.  How  can  the  king  of  one 
country,  be  king  over  the  Christian  church,  since  this  church 
belongs  to  all  countries  ?  The  claim  is  groundless ;  it  is  ut- 
terly without  any  good  support.  God  speed,  then,  to  the  noble 
advocates  of  "  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God," 
wherever  they  are  or  may  be!  God  speed  to  the  noble 
movement  in  the  Scottish  Church,  to  the  new  race  of  Zuin- 
glis  and  of  Knoxes !  No  movement  since  the  days  of  Lu- 
ther has  promised  so  much  to  the  liberty  of  the  churches  in 
Europe,  as  this.  In  fact,  it  is  an  effort  at  Reformation  such 
as  Luther  never  made.  He  left  this  great  point  untouched. 
Ten  thousand  thousand  voices  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  in 
accents  which  I  would  hope  will  reach  even  across  the  mighty 
deep,  bid  the  advocates  of  church  freedom  in  Scotland  God 
SPEED  !  The  experiment  is,  as  our  political  fathers  judged 
theirs  to  be  when  they  met  to  declare  and  defend  their  liber- 
ties, worthy  of  pledging  "  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their 
sacred  honour."  May  those  engaged  in  making  it  succeed  as 
-well  as  our  ancestors !  The  time  has  come  to  avow  their 
principles,  in  the  face  of  heaven  and  earth.  The  time,  as  I 
would  hope  in  God,  has  come,  in  which  they  may  successful- 
ly defend  them.  If  my  feeble  voice  could  reach  across  the 
Atlantic,  I  would  say  :  All  hail !  ye  noble  soldiers  of  the 
cross  !     Fight  manfully  the  battles  of  the  Lord.     STAND 

FAST   IN    THE    LIBERTY    WHEEEWITH    ChRIST  HAS  MADE 
YOU  FREE  ! 

But  I  am  losing  myself  in  this  interesting  theme.  Let 
us  return,  and  see  if  there  be  not  some  additional  considera- 
tions, that  will  help  us  to  decide,  in  all  cases  of  importance, 

34 


398  §  22.    USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

what  in  the  Old  Testament  is  binding  on  us,  and  what  is 
not. 

Thus  far  we  have  gone  upon  the  ground  of  specifying  par- 
ticulars, which  are  exempted  from  the  category  of  perpetual 
obligation.  Let  us  shift  our  position,  and  look  at  the  matter 
from  another  point  of  view. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  lay  down  some  simple  and  general 
principles;  and  the  application  of  them,  in  the  main,  is  very 
easy.  But  in  some  cases,  it  requires  indeed  a  nice  discrimi- 
nation, and  an  extensive  acquaintance  with  both  the  old  and 
new  dispensation,  in  order  to  decide  with  any  good  degree  of 
certainty.  But  these  cases  are  not  numerous,  and  will  occa- 
sion no  serious  embarrassment  to  those  who  are  intent  upon 
their  actual  and  practical  duties. 

I  would  lay  it  down,  then,  as  a  plain  and  palpable  principle 
or  maxim,  in  regard  to  the  binding  authority  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament, that  all  in  it  of  the  nature  of  precept  or  doctrine,  ivhich 
concerns  the  permanent  relations  of  men  to  their  God,  their 
felloiu  beings,  or  themselves,  stands  unaltered  and  unrepealed 
hy  the  Gospel. 

In  view  of  such  a  principle  the  Saviour  declared,  that 
"  heaven  and  earth  should  sooner  pass  away,  than  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  should  pass  from  the  Law,  until  all  be  fulfilled." 
True  religion  has  always  been,  and  always  will  be,  the  love  of 
God  and  man.  True  religion  always  demanded,  then,  and 
always  must  demand,  those  duties  which  stand  necessarily 
connected  with  the  exhibition  of  love.*  To  love  God  with  all 
the  heart,  demands  of  us  to  reverence  and  obey  him.  To 
love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  demands  the  performance  of 
many  duties  connected  with  our  relation  to  him.  Now  as 
to  some  of  these  duties,  it  is  true  that  the  manner  of  perform- 
ing them  may  in  some  respects  vary ;  but  that  manner,  when 
not  necessarily  connected  with  the  substance  of  the  duty,  is 
not  a  subject  of  prescription.  The  Jew,  in  order  to  pay  his  high- 
est devotions  and  homage  to  God,  must  present  his  paschal 
lamb  in  the  temple,  and  cause  its  blood  to  be  sprinkled  at  the 
altar.    But  all  that  was  external  and  ceremonial,  in  a  word  all 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION,  399 

that  pertained  to  the  manner  of  paying  his  devotions  and  his 
homage,  is  now  done  away.  And  the  same,  of  everything  that 
concerns  the  manifestation  of  religious  feeling,  or  of  love  to 
our  neighbour.  Whatever  in  the  manner  of  any  or  all  of  the 
duties  required  of  us,  was  Jewish,  local,  temporary,  or  depen- 
dent on,  or  modified  by,  time  and  place  and  external  circum- 
stances— all  of  this  nature  is  no  longer  obligatory.  We  have 
only  to  inquire  in  every  case,  either  of  a  doctrine  or  of  a  pre- 
cept, what  there  is  in  it  which  pertained  to  time  and  place 
and  external  circumstances  ;  and  if  we  can  find  what  that  is, 
then  so  much  of  that  precept  or  doctrine  as  pertains  to  the  local 
or  the  temporary,  is  to  be  abstracted,  when  we  appropriate 
either  of  these  to  our  own  use.  The  principle  is  plain ;  it  is 
sound ;  it  is  beyond  fair  question.  We  are  no  more  bound 
to  look  toward  Jerusalem  when  we  pray,  as  Daniel  did  (6: 
10),  than  we  are  to  present  our  sacrifices  and  oblations  there. 
The  diUy  of  prayer  remains  obligatory,  because  it  depends  on 
the  permanent  and  unchanging  relations  of  man  to  God ;  but 
the  manner  of  it  is  not  prescribed  by  anything  which  the  Old 
Testament  (or  even  the  New)  contains. 

How  futile  then  are  all  appeals  to  Jewish  altars  and  incense 
and  priestly  vestments,  and  pomp  of  worship,  in  order  to  jus- 
tify and  even  to  insist  upon  corresponding  things  in  a  Chris- 
tian church  !  God  has  lighted  up  and  adorned  his  own  mag- 
nificent temple — even  the  whole  earth.  His  altar  is  on  every 
spot,  where  the  sacrifice  of  a  broken  and  contrite  heart  is  of- 
fered. The  sweet  incense  that  he  accepts  is  "  the  prayers  of 
all  the  saints."  How  little  do  the  advocates  of  all  these  ex- 
ternals seem  to  consider  the  true  nature  of  that  Being  "  who 
is  a  Spirit,  and  must  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth  !" 

Almost  everywhere,  through  the  Old  Testament,  lie  scat- 
tered principles  and  precepts  which  are  of  a  permanent  and 
enduring  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  seldom  can  we  find 
any  extensive  portions  of  these  Scriptures,  which  do  not  con- 
tain something  that  is  merely  local  and  temporary. 

It  is  important  to  illustrate  this  ;  but  it  must  be  briefly  done. 
I  will  select,  as  a  specimen  from  the  prophets,  the  brief  work 


400  §  22.    USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  Obadiah,  consisting  of  only  twenty-one  verses.  These  are 
occupied  with  threatening  evil  to  Edom,  the  old  and  bitter  en- 
emy of  Israel.  As  the  nation  of  the  Edomites  has  been  extin- 
guished for  more  than  2000  years,  it  would  seem  that  we  had 
Tery  little  interest  in  such  a  book  as  this.  Still,  an  attentive 
perusal  of  it  will  enable  us  to  correct  such  a  judgment.  In 
that  little  book  stands  pourtrayed,  in  glowing  colours,  the  doc- 
trine of  retribution  for  enmity  and  injury  done  to  others* 
There  stands  too,  in  high  relief,  the  sentiment  that  God  is 
King  of  nations ;  that  they  are  in  his  hands  as  clay  in  the 
hands  of  the  potter ;  and  that  although  he  may  delay,  he  will 
not  remit,  the  claims  of  a  just  retribution.  There  too  may 
comfort  be  found.  The  poor  oppressed  and  injured  Jews, 
who  had  been  attacked  with  fury  by  the  Edomites,  when  bro- 
ken down  and  crushed  to  the  dust  by  the  Chaldaean  power, 
are  cheered  with  the  certain  promise  of  deliverance  from  the 
Edomitish  aggression,  and  with  the  assurance  that  Edom  shall 
be  trodden  down  and  utterly  unable  to  rise  up  any  more 
against  them.  In  short,  God  is  king  of  nations ;  God  will 
vindicate  the  cause  of  the  oppressed ;  and  "  God  is  angry 
with  the  wicked  every  day."  To  attack  and  oppress  the  suf- 
fering and  the  humbled,  is  matter  of  high  treason  in  his  sight. 
We  cannot  exult  over  the  calamities  of  others,  without  expos- 
ing ourselves  to  the  righteous  indignation  of  the  supreme 
Judge  of  all. 

Many  other  deductions  might  be  made  from  this  brief  pro- 
phecy, which  seems  at  first  to  promise  so  little  that  is  inter- 
esting to  us  ;  but  I  have  purposely  confined  myself  only  to 
those  things  which  lie  upon  the  very  surface  of  the  composi- 
tion. 

Once  more  ;  let  us  select  a  portion  of  Scripture,  which  is 
seemingly  or  at  first  view,  one  of  the  most  unpromising  of  all 
which  the  Old  Testament  exhibits.  The  last  fifteen  chapters 
of  Exodus  are  occupied  almost  entirely  with  a  sketch  or  plan 
of  the  tabernacle,  its  apparatus,  and  its  appurtenances,  and 
with  an  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  whole  of  this 
plan  was  carried  into  execution.     A  great  portion  is  simple 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  401 

detail  of  arcliitectural  designs,  and  of  the  materials  with  which 
various  things  were  to  be  constructed.  What  possible  inter- 
est now  can  we  have  in  all  this  ? 

If  I  may  be  permitted  to  answer  this  question,  I  would  say : 
There  are  several  points  of  view,  in  which  we  may  look  at 
this  with  some  interest.  Does  the  architect  take  any  interest 
in  the  history  of  his  art  ?  Here  is  rich  material ;  and  this 
in  respect  to  things  some  loOO  years  before  the  Christian 
era.  Let  him  compare  the  whole  with  the  remains  of  ancient 
art  in  Egypt.  Does  the  historian,  who  relates  the  progress 
of  invention  in  the  arts,  manufactures,  luxuries,  and  conven- 
iences of  life,  wish  for  a  view  of  what  existed  at  a  most  re- 
mote period,  in  each  of  these  respects  ?  Here  he  has  ample 
material,  in  tliis  sketch  by  Moses.  Does  the  historian  of  the 
Hebrew  nation  wish  to  trace  the  progress  of  its  improvements 
in  the  arts,  and  conveniences,  and  the  luxuries  of  life  ?  Here 
he  has  an  important  document.  If  there  were  no  other  uses 
than  these  of  the  document  in  question,  they  would  be  enough 
to  make  it  very  welcome  to  all  the  lovers  of  antiquity.  But 
there  ai'e  other  important  considerations  still  remaining. 

For  what  purpose  was  such  a  magnificent  and  costly  struc- 
ture required  ?  Was  it  that  God  dwells  in  temples  made  by 
hands  ?  No,  nothing  of  this.  But  still,  when  God  reveals 
himself  to  men,  and  (so  to  speak)  takes  up  his  abode  with 
them,  he  must  do  this  in  a  manner  worthy  of  his  nature  and 
of  the  occasion.  Even  idols  had  their  magnificent  temples. 
The  true  God  is  not  to  be  placed  below  them.  Under  a  dis- 
pensation where  so  much  of  the  external  was  necessary,  in 
order  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  times  and  the  ignorance  of 
the  people,  God  must  be  enthroned  in  a  palace  worthy  as  it 
were  of  his  presence.  An  impression  of  his  majesty  and  of 
his  high  and  holy  nature  must  be  made,  by  such  a  use  of  ex- 
ternals as  will  command  respect  and  homage.  Nor  is  this  all. 
God  must  be  approached  and  worshipped,  by  a  presentation 
of  the  best  gifts,  the  most  costly  and  precious  ofi'erings.  The 
most  valuable  and  costly  substances  are  therefore  put  in  re- 
quisition for  his  worship.  Men  are  called  upon  to  acknow- 
34* 


402  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAJIENT 

ledge  him  as  the  author  and  the  rightful  lord  and  proprietor 
of  all  that  belongs  to  them,  even  of  their  most  precious  things. 
A  law  dispensation  called  in  a  special  manner  for  veneration 
of  the  Law-giver,  and  sacred  awe  in  his  presence.  The  King 
and  Lord  of  the  Jewish  nation  deemed  it  proper  to  appear 
among  them  as  their  monarch,  in  his  splendid  and  holy  pal- 
ace. God  designed  that  the  Israelites  should  feel  his  claims, 
and  his  perfect  right,  to  the  best  which  they  could  offer  him. 
Nothing  ordinary,  common,  valueless,  impure,  could  be  pre- 
sented as  material  for  his  tabernacle,  or  to  constitute  the  ob- 
lations and  gifts  there  offered.  The  impression  of  all  these 
arrangements  upon  the  simple  and  untutored  mind  was  salu- 
tary in  a  high  degree,  and  filled  it  with  a  deferential  respect 
which  would  check  the  spirit  of  disobedience.  And  from  all 
may  we  not  draw  the  inference,  even  at  the  present  time, 
that  men  are  bound  not  to  withhold  even  their  choicest  sub- 
stance and  gifts,  when  the  service  of  God  requires  them  ? 
Truly  we  may,  and  with  good  reason.  God,  whose  temple 
is  everywhere,  does  indeed  no  longer  require  us  to  rear  mag- 
nificent edifices  for  his  dwelling-place.  But  the  spirit  of  taber- 
nacle and  temple  building  admonishes  us,  that  churches  should 
not  be  constructed  so  as  to  convey  an  idea  of  grudging  and  of 
avarice  in  the  builders,  or  so  as  to  inspire  those  who  repair  to 
them  with  disrespect  or  contempt.  All  should  be  done  decent- 
ly, as  well  as  in  order.  Let  the  external  not  be  at  variance 
with  the  internal.  Let  both  be  such  as  becomes  the  nature 
of  the  worship  and  of  the  Being  to  whom  it  is  paid.  And 
this  very  consideration  forbids  all  that  is  gaudy  and  fini- 
cal, or  fraught  with  mere  display,  and  demands  the  simple, 
the  chaste,  the  neat,  the  sober,  the  grave,  the  impressive. 

And  are  these  instructions,  now,  matters  of  no  account  ? 
Is  not  the  practical  exhibition  of  them  as  striking  and  im- 
pressive as  the  mere  abstract  statement  of  the  principles  ex- 
hibited in  them  would  be  ?  Nay,  is  it  not  far  more  so  ?  I 
understand,  indeed,  what  is  meant,  when  we  are  forbidden  to 
approach  our  neighbour's  house,  with  hostile  feelings,  in  the 
day  of  his  calamity,  or  to  exult  over  his  misfortunes.     But 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  403 

when  Edom  is  held  up  before  my  eyes  by  Obadiah  as  having 
rushed  upon  the  Jews,  in  the  day  of  their  humiliation  by  the 
power  of  Babylon  ;  when  the  embittered  enmity,  the  spirit 
of  vengeance  and  of  rapacity,  and  the  unspeakable  meanness  of 
the  Edoraites,  and  their  consequent  punishment,  is  embodied 
and  made  palpable  and  held  up  to  open  view  in  this  way;  I  am 
far  more  affected  and  even  instructed  by  it,  than  I  am  by  the 
abstract  precept  in  question. 

And  when  the  splendid  gifts  of  all  who  had  a  willing  heart 
among  the  Jews  are  made,  and  the  magnificent  structure  of 
the  tabernacle  is  reared,  and  God  descends  in  a  shining  cloud 
which  fills  and  covers  the  building,  and  speaks  from  his 
awful  sanctuary  there,  who  wonders  that  even  Moses  was  un- 
able to  enter  in  because  of  the  excess  of  glory,  or  that  all  the 
people  should  fall  prostrate  on  their  faces  and  worship  ?  And 
when  we  read  all  this,  are  we  not  as  deeply  impressed  with  a 
sense  of  the  majesty  of  God,  and  of  the  reverence  and  obedi- 
ence due  to  him,  as  we  are  with  the  simple  declaration,  that 
God  is  great,  and  greatly  to  be  feared  and  had  in  reverence 
by  all  who  approach  him  ?  Whoever  decides,  that  nothing  is 
to  be  learned  from  even  such  narratives  as  these,  decides  has- 
tily and  without  becoming  consideration  of  the  whole  matter. 
Still,  the  instructions  of  the  Gospel  are  more  palpable  and 
forcible  ;  at  least  they  are  so  to  most  minds. 

May  we  not  conclude,  then,  that  fruit  may  be  gathered 
from  all  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecy,  and  history, 
and  even  from  the  structure  of  sacred  edifices  ?  Are  they  net 
in  some  respects  all  "  ensamples,  written  for  our  admonition, 
on  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  have  come  ?"  I  believe 
them  to  be  so.  I  think  Paul  looked  upon  them  in  this  ligh^ 
And  where  is  there  now,  in  all  the  historical  books  of  Scrip- 
ture, any  narrations  from  which  something  may  not  be  learn- 
ed ?  I  do  not  say  something  neio,  but  I  mean  to  say,  that 
some  truth  is  taught,  illustrated,  or  confirmed,  which  is  a  truth 
of  permanent  interest,  at  all  times  and  in  all  places.  Is  not 
all  the  Jewish  history  theocratical2-  Is  not  all  Hebrew  pro- 
phecy theocratical  ?     It  is  truly  so  ;  in  prophecy  and  in  histo- 


404  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ry,  God  is  all  and  in  all.  His  providence,  his  retribution,  his 
pleasure  or  displeasure,  his  hatred  of  sin,  his  love  of  justice 
and  holiness,  his  supremacy,  his  requirements,  are  everywhere 
directly  or  indirectly  taught.  Even  where  nothing  more  than 
simple  national  or  individual  events  are  related,  whether  in 
history  or  in  prophecy,  there  still  hes  in  this,  an  account  of 
the  divine  dealings  with  men,  or  of  the  wickedness  of  the  hu- 
man heart,  or  of  its  penitence  and  obedience  and  holiness. 
There  is  always  something  to  imitate,  or  something  to  be 
shunned.  Even  the  most  moderate  intellect  cannot  fail  to 
observe  this. 

It  needs,  I  readily  concede,  some  skill  always  in  a  success- 
ful manner  to  divest  the  kernel  of  its  shell  or  its  husk  ;  more 
than  some  of  those  expositors  have  exhibited,  who  have  the 
faculty  of  making  one  passage  of  Scripture  just  as  fruitful  as 
another,  and  even  of  deducing  a  whole  system  of  theology 
from  any  given  passage.  But  still,  common  sense  and  a  mod- 
erate share  of  taste  may  suffice  for  the  matter  in  question. 
The  maxim  of  philosophizing  civilians  is,  that  history  is  pre- 
cept teaching  hy  example.  If  that  is  true  of  profane  history, 
is  it  not  more  so  of  sacred  ?  So,  I  must  think,  Paul  believed 
and  taught ;  and  so  we  may  believe  and  teach  after  him. 

Then  what  a  boundless  variety  is  given  to  the  themes  of  a 
skilful  preacher  !  Without  any  double  sense,  or  occult  mean- 
ing, or  forced  allegory,  or  anagogical  process,  he  can  go  any- 
where in  the  wide  field  of  Scripture,  and  find  something  that 
is  useful  and  instructive.  Such  a  preacher  would  be  among 
the  last  to  part  with  the  Old  Testament. 

Thus  far  I  have  given  mere  hints  ;  and  these  are  all  which 
time  and  place  permit.  I  must  not  quit  the  subject,  howev- 
er, without  adding  a  few  more. 

I  have  said,  that  rarely  will  one  find  any  considerable  por- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament,  where  there  is  nothing  in  it  of  the 
local  and  temporal  that  must  be  abstracted,  in  order  for  us 
to  reduce  it  to  practice  or  present  use.  In  the  devotional 
Psalms  even,  there  are  references  to  places  and  modes  of 
worship,  which  we  must  separate  and  distinguish  from  those 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  405 

sentiments  by  which  we  are  now  to  be  profited.  The  Psalms 
of  complaint,  of  thanksgiving,  of  imprecation,  and  others,  all 
have  something  which  savours  of  time  and  place  and  circum- 
stances. These  we  must  omit ;  excepting  that  in  the  exege- 
sis of  the  Psalm  we  must  treat  them  as  essential,  but  not  in 
the  practical  use  of  it. 

It  is  so  with  the  Mosaic  laws.  Many,  even  most  of  them, 
have  something  attached  to  them  or  connected  with  them, 
which  is  Jewish,  and  therefore  local  and  temporary.  Even 
the  ten  commandments  are  not  altogether  an  exception  to  this. 
When  we  are  required  to  honor  our  father  and  mother,  we 
are  commanded  to  do  what  will  always  be  a  duty,  at  all  times, 
among  all  nations.  But  when  the  promise  is  added,  that  we 
shall  have  long  life  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  in  consequence  of 
filial  duty,  this  is  a  part  which  belonged  only  to  the  Jews. 
The  promise  to  us,  is  a  higher  and  a  spiritual  reward.  The 
Gospel  holds  out  no  mere  earthly  promises  other  than  what 
virtue  generally  holds  out,  by  pointing  us  to  the  consequences 
which  follow  the  practice  of  it. 

I  would  say  also,  that  "  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children,  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation,"  (which 
is  a  part  of  another  commandment),  has  an  oriental  shape  ; 
for  in  the  East,  punishment  for  any  high  misdemeanor  usually 
involved,  as  it  still  does,  the  whole  of  one's  posterity  in  the 
same  consequences  which  himself  must  suffer.  What  re- 
mains for  us,  is,  to  regard  the  command  as  threatening  severe 
and  unmitigated  punishment. 

So  I  might  go  through  the  whole  Pentateuch,  yea,  through 
all  the  historical  and  prophetical  books,  and  apply  the  same 
principles  with  the  like  results.  It  does  indeed  require  some 
good  measure  of  sobriety,  of  discretion,  and  discrimination,  al- 
ways to  make  the  separation  between  the  local  and  temporal 
and  the  permanent,  in  a  proper  manner.  And  so  it  does  rightly 
to  appreciate  the  figurative  language  of  Scripture,  its  metaphors 
and  its  allegories.  The  man  whose  mind  is  adequate  to  this 
task,  may  surely  be  fitted  to  perform  the  other.  Indeed, 
most  men  of  any  tolerable  education  and  of  good  common 


406  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA^IENT 

sense,  can  perform  the  task  in  question  with  little  clanger  of 
erring,  except  in  a  few  of  the  more  difficult  cases.  To  make 
the  distinctions  in  question,  is  a  matter,  I  may  also  remai'k, 
which  really  belongs  to  the  practical  commentaries  upon  the 
Scriptures  ;  and  some  of  them  have  in  part  performed  it. 
But  alas  !  how  few  of  the  authors  of  these  have  been  distin- 
guished for  a  profound  critical  and  exegetical  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures  !  How  few  have  satisfied  the  claims  of  the  reason 
and  understanding  of  men !  Many  of  them  abound  in  re- 
marks full  of  pious  feeling ;  and  some  of  them  show  an  ex- 
tensive knowledge  of  Christian  experience  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion. But  all  this  may  be,  without  shedding  any  new  light 
on  the  path  of  the  ignorant  and  the  inquiring.  Pages,  I  had 
almost  said  volumes,  of  some  of  them  may  be  read  without 
meeting  with  any  such  light.  The  consequence  of  course  is, 
that  in  many,  perhaps  in  most  cases,  reading  of  this  sort  be- 
gins, after  a  while,  to  weary  him  who  performs  it,  and  he 
comes  to  it  as  to  a  task  prescribed,  rather  than  a  privilege  to 
be  desired.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  such  reading  will  be 
long  practised.  A  commentary  that  would  give  us  simply 
what  is  to  be  fairly  learned  from  every  part  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, in  respect  to  present  duty,  or  as  to  doctrine,  and 
which  would  do  this  throughout  the  Scriptures,  is  one  of  the 
things  yet  to  be  ;  for  I  cannot  think  that  it  now  is.  God  is 
preparing  men,  I  doubt  not,  for  the  accomplishment  of  such 
a  work  ;  one  in  which  all  the  results  of  critical  and  exegeti- 
cal study  shall  be  embodied,  and  united  with  all  that  eminent 
Christian  experience  may  suggest  or  teach.  May  such  a 
work  be  hastened  in  its  time ! 

Many  good  men,  in  treating  of  Old  Test,  matters,  and  ex- 
plaining the  contents  of  these  books,  seem  to  think  that  they 
are  at  liberty  to  pursue  allegory  and  type  and  anagogical  pro- 
cesses, to  any  extent  that  they  please.  A  greater  mistake  can 
hardly  be  made,  in  so  important  a  concern.  The  moment  a 
reader  or  hearer  gets  possession  of  the  idea,  that  a  writer  or 
preacher  is  merely  addressing  himself  to  his  imagination  and 
fancy,  he  ceases  to  give  him  his  serious  confidence.     He  may 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  407 

be  amused — greatly  amused,  if  we  must  concede  it,  by  the  in- 
genuity and  vivid  fancy  of  his  interpreter ;  but  after  all  he 
will  with  difficulty  be  brought  to  believe,  that  the  sacred 
writers  addressed  themselves  to  readers  in  the  way  of  amuse- 
ment. His  first  feeling,  after  a  little  of  wonder  or  perhaps  of 
admiration  is  over,  is  indifference.  His  next  is  uneasiness  in 
reading  or  hearing  things  of  this  nature.  It  is  well  if  the 
matter  does  not  end  in  contempt  of  the  whole. 

I  would  that  the  Old  Testament  were  employed  oftentimes 
in  quite  a  different  way  from  that  which  is  not  uncommon  in 
resorting  to  it.  "What  can  we  say  of  those  teachers,  who  find 
just  as  full  and  complete  a  revelation  in  the  Old  Testament  of 
every  Christian  doctrine,  as  in  the  New  ?  For  example  ;  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  found  as  completely  there,  as  in  the 
New  Testament.  Yet  the  Saviour,  in  reference  even  to  Mo- 
ses says,  that  "  no  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  the  only 
begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  de- 
clared him  f  John  1: 18.  Were  the  Jews  Trinitarians^  be- 
fore the  coming  of  Christ  ?  I  know  of  no  satisfactory  evidence 
of  this  fact.  All  the  efforts  to  prove  it  have  ended  in  mere 
appeals  to  cahbalizing  Jews,  who  lived  long  after  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  written.  It  is  the  lis-ht  which  the  New  Testament 
casts  upon  various  passages  of  the  Old,  and  that  only,  which 
enables  us  to  bring  the  Old  Testament  to  bear  upon  this  doc- 
trine. It  remained  for  Christ  to  make  the  full  revelation  of 
this.  It  was  only  by  the  incarnation,  that  the  Trinity  of  the 
Godhead  was  fully  developed.  And  when  the  New  Testa- 
ment asserts,  that  this  or  that  thing  was  done  by  Christ,  or 
the  Logos,  under  the  ancient  dispensation,  or  that  this  or  that 
was  spoken  by  him,  it  is  only  then  that  we  come  to  a  full 
knowledge  of  any  specific  nature;  as  it  respects  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, concerning  the  persons  of  the  Godhead.  In  this  way, 
the  Old  Testament  does  indeed  contribute  important  aid  in 
making  us  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Take  another  instance  in  respect  to  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  and  a  future  state.  Paul  says  of  Christ,  that  "  he  has 
abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light 


408  §  22.    USE    OF   THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

through  the  gospel;"  2  Tim.  1:  10.  But  if  all  this  was  re- 
vealed and  understood  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  on  what 
can  this  assertion  be  grounded  ?  Not  that  the  Hebrews  were 
entirely  ignorant,  as  many  have  asserted,  of  a  future  state. 
"Were  they  inferior,  in  this  respect,  to  their  neighbours  the 
Egyptians  and  the  Greeks  ?  Not  that  some  such  men  as 
Enoch,  and  Abraham,  and  David,  and  Isaiah,  had  no  proper 
views  of  future  rewards  and  punishments.  The  apostle  ex- 
plicitly asserts  (Heb.  xi.),  that  they  had.  But  still,  it  was 
reserved  for  the  Gospel  to  turn  Jewish  twilight  into  broad 
Christian  day.  It  has  done  so.  But  in  expounding  the  Bi- 
ble under  its  influence,  we  must  attribute  no  more  to  the  Old 
Testament,  than  belongs  to  it.  The  glory  of  the  gospel  is  not 
to  be  taken  away,  and  given  to  a  mere  introductory  dispensa- 
tion. The  ministration  of  the  Law  had  indeed  its  glory  ;  but 
the  apostle  assures  us,  that  ^'  it  now  has  [comparatively]  no 
glory,  by  reason  of  that  which  excelleth." 

Let  these  and  the  like  great  principles  be  always  kept  in 
view.  We  need  not  become  Judaizers,  because  we  maintain 
the  authenticity  of  the  Old  Testament.  Its  day  has  passed. 
But  how  could  a  divine  religion  be  revealed  in  it,  and  yet 
none  of  the  principles  inculcated  by  the  gospel  be  exhibited  ? 
The  thing  was  impossible.  That  we  should  love  God  su- 
premely, and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  was  always  taught — 
always  urged.  But  a  thousand  things  in  respect  to  the  detail 
of  all  the  developments  of  these  great  principles,  are  different 
in  the  Old  Testament  from  what  is  demanded  by  the  New. 
Let  us  fully  recognize  this,  and  thank  God  for  our  better  light. 
But  our  gratitude  for  the  Gospel  need  not  lead  us  to  skepti- 
cism about  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  nor  to  any  undervaluing  of 
them.  Very  different  must  the  state  of  our  minds  be  which 
would  lead  us  to  do  this,  from  that  of  Paul,  who  so  often 
resorted  to  them  in  order  to  show  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 
"We  should  regard  them  in  the  light  of  a  preface  or  of  an  intro- 
duction to  the  gospel.  Why  should  the  book  be  admitted, 
and  the  preface,  which  explains  the  nature  of  it,  be  thrown 
away  ? 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  409 

It  would  be  endless  to  particularize  all  the  wrong  uses  which 
are  made,  even  bj  many  Christian  ministers,  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  the  violence  often  done  to  it  in  order  to  make  it 
speak  as  men  wish.  It  might  be  a  profitable  employment,  to 
present  "  the  cry  of  injured  texts,"  and  plead  their  cause  be- 
fore an  impartial  tribunal.  But  my  present  object  forbids  me- 
to  enlarge  upon  this  part  of  my  subject. 

I  cannot  well  doubt,  that  not  a  few  intelligent  minds  are 
rendered  somewhat  averse  to  the  Old  Testament,  on  account 
of  the  many  irrelevant  appeals  to  it  which  are  made  both  in- 
and  out  of  the  pulpit,  and  the  irrelevant  quotations  made  from 
it.  Books  of  such  a  peculiar  nature  as  Job  and  EcclesiasteSy 
for  example,  are  resorted  to  with  as  much  confidence  for 
proof-texts,  as  if  they  were  all  preceptive,  and  not  an  account 
of  disputes  and  doubts  about  religious  matters.  Job  19:  25  seq» 
is  constantly  quoted,  to  show  the  patriarch's-  knowledge  of  a 
Messiah  to  come,  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  not- 
withstanding the  context  and  the  tenor  of  the  whole  book  are  to- 
tally of  a  different  nature.  The  Psalms  that  breathe  forth  im- 
precations are  appealed  to  by  some,  as  justifying  the  spirit  of 
vengeance  under  the  gospel,  instead  of  being  regarded  as  the 
expression  of  a  peculiar  state  of  mind  in  the  writer,  and  of  his 
imperfect  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  full  spirit  of  forgive- 
ness. Thanks  for  national  blessings,  and  gratitude  for  indi- 
vidual deliverances  from  personal  danger,  are  turned  into  ex- 
pressions of  gratitude  for  blessings  purely  spiritual,  and  for 
deliverances  merely  spiritual.  There  is  indeed  not  much  if 
any  harm  in  this  ;  but  still,  it  is  on  the  whole  better  always 
to  let  the  Bible  speak  just  what  it  simply  says,  and  no  more^ 
The  practice  of  straining  the  construction  of  it  in  any  way, 
gives  rise  to  many  improper  liberties  with  it.  Skeptics  are 
always  ready  to  take  advantage  of  this ;  and  it  is  not  best  to 
give  them  occasion  to  exult  over  the  weakness  or  the  preju- 
dices of  its  advocates. 

I  have  hardly  touched  upon  the  subject  of  unlimited  license 
in  the  matter  of  types  and  double  sense  and  allegorical  exposi- 
tion.    The  boundless  liberties  of  this  nature,  which  have  been 

35 


410  §  22.   USE    OF   THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

taken  in  days  that  are  past,  is  too  well  knoM'n  to  need  descrip- 
tion. Every  conspicuous  person  and  thing  has  been  regarded 
as  a  type  of  Christ,  or  of  his  church,  until  at  last  it  comes  to 
this,  that  all  the  ancient  world  existed  and  acted  only  in  the 
capacity  of  types  or  foreshadowings  of  persons  or  events  to 
come.  All  the  articles  of  ornament  or  furniture  for  the  taber- 
nacle and  temple,  were  mere  patterns  of  something  that  was 
to  be  attached  to  the  new  temple  under  the  new  dispensation. 
Even  the  trays,  and  bowls,  and  tongs,  and  snuffers,  and  can- 
dlesticks, bore  a  significant  and  not  unimportant  part,  as  it 
respected  the  Messianic  times ;  and  of  course  all  offices  and 
duties,  of  priests  and  Levites  and  servitors,  must  have  their 
proper  significance.  Anything  which  befel  Moses,  or  Joshua, 
or  David,  or  other  conspicuous  personages,  the  story  of  which 
is  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  becomes,  under  such  a  pro- 
cess, and  by  virtue  of  a  vnovoia  or  occult  sense,  full  of  signifi- 
cance under  the  new  order  of  things.  Launched  on  a  bound- 
less ocean,  and  without  chart  or  compass,  the  allegorists  seem 
intent  only  upon  rapid  sailing ;  it  matters  little  in  what  direc- 
tion. 

Public  taste  has,  some  time  since,  begun  to  correct  these 
extravagances.  But  every  now  and  then  the  doubter  of  the 
ancient  Scriptures  meets  with  them  still,  and  curls  his  lip  in 
proud  disdain.  No  wonder.  "  Si  naturam  furca  expellas,  us- 
que recurret."  Violence  done  to  the  understanding  and  to 
sober  common  sense,  although  it  may  be  slow-footed,  will  be 
certain  to  avenge  itself  at  last.  If  there  is  any  book  in  all  the 
world  addressed  to  the  sober  reason  and  judgment  of  men, 
that  book  is  the  Bible.  It  is  written  by  men,  addressed  to 
men,  and  designed  for  men.  Of  course  it  adopts  a  human 
and  intelligible  manner  of  address  throughout.  God  has 
shown  his  paternal  condescension  to  the  weaknesses  of  men, 
in  all  this.  The  Scriptures,  written  in  any  other  manner, 
could  be  of  but  little  profit  to  us.  And  when  we  see  methods 
of  interpretation  applied  to  them,  which  no  other  book  will 
bear,  and  which  would  hold  any  one  up  to  scorn  if  he  should 
adopt  them  in  explaining  a  Classic,  how  can  it  be  expected, 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  411 

that  the  understanding  and  reason  will  not  distrust  tliem,  and 
sooner  or  later  be  sure  to  revolt  against  them  ? 

Among  all  the  abuses  of  the  Old  Testament,  none  are  more 
conspicuous  than  those  which  result  from  sectarian  views  and 
purposes.  What  a  mere  lump  of  wax  does  the  Bible  become 
in  the  hands  of  a  zealous  defender  of  sect,  perfectly  moldable 
at  his  pleasure.  No  laws  of  language  or  of  grammar  stand  in 
his  way.  The  original  intention  of  the  writer  of  the  Scrips 
ture  is  little  or  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  occult  meaning 
is  summoned  to  his  aid ;  and  this  is  always  ready,  at  his  bid- 
ding, to  assume  every  possible  form.  Armed  in  this  way,  his 
antagonists  are  cut  down  by  whole  ranks  at  a  blow,  and  the 
standard  of  sect  waves  speedily  over  that  of  the  Bible. 

Perhaps  the  projyhecies  sujBfer  most  of  all  from  party  spirit 
and  narrow  partial  views  of  exegesis.  A  popular  writer,  who 
is  much  more  conspicuous  for  eloquence  and  imagination,  than 
for  philology  or  discriminating  powers  of  mind,  rises  up  and 
proclaims  great  events  at  hand,  or  not  far  distant.  The  book 
of  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse,  above  all,  are  thrown  into  the 
furnace,  "  heated  seven  times  more  than  it  is  wont  to  be," 
and  there  comes  out  from  the  crucible  a  new  and  splendid 
metal,  the  result  of  wondrous  combination  and  composition. 
The  nations,  the  events,  the  ecclesiastical  establishments,  the 
heresies,  of  modern  Christian  countries,  are  all  discovered  in 
the  reflection  of  this  shining  compound.  Above  all,  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter  finds  himself  placed  at  the  head  of  all  the 
indications  that  are  prophetic.  It  matters  not  whether  a 
book  is  written  to  instruct  a  church,  or  to  console  one  amidst 
the  evils  and  sufferings  of  persecution  ;  nor  even  whether  it 
was  addressed  to  the  Babylonian  Jews  in  exile ;  the  same 
conspicuous  personage,  Peter's  successor,  and  his  attendants, 
fill  all  the  foreground  of  every  picture.  The  question  as  to 
the  edification  of  those  to  whom  the  prophecies  were  origi- 
nally addressed,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  exposition  of  the 
prophet's  work.  The  only  thing  or  personage  that  can  fill  the 
eye  of  a  prophet,  when  he  takes  into  view  the  new  Dispen- 
sation, must  be  the  'po'pe.     No  other  beast  of  "  seven  heads 


412  §  22.    USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

and  ten  horns  "  ever  made  or  could  make  its  appearance ; 
no  other  "  scarlet  beast,  full  of  the  names  of  blasphemy,"  has 
ever  presented  itself  before  the  eyes  of  a  prophetic  seer ;  none 
other  but  she  whom  this  beast  bears,  "  the  mother  of  harlots," 
has  ever  held  in  her  hands  the  "  cup  of  abominations"  and 
been  "  drunk  with  the  blood  of  saints."  And  then  the  partizan, 
in  his  overflowing  zeal,  would  fain  compel  us  to  say,  whether  we 
can  suppose  that  Daniel,  or  John,  or  any  other  prophet,  was 
not  a  full-blooded  Protestant  ?  And  such  being  the  case,  he 
wishes  to  know,  whether  such  a  prophet  could  ever  think  or 
prophesy  concerning  any  other  beast  than  the  pope  ? 

Such  a  use  of  the  prophetic  writings  is  what  we  are  called 
to  witness  every  day,  even  in  these  times,  when  the  rage  for 
type,  and  allegory,  and  double  sense,  and  occult  meaning,  has 
in  a  very  considerable  measure  abated.  Protestants,  not  well 
furnished  with  other  arms  against  the  papacy,  resort  to  this 
weapon,  which  is  always  ready  at  hand,  and  kept  indeed  tol- 
erably well  burnished  by  use.  •  Alas  !  the  misfortune  is,  that 
the  weapon  has  two  edges  ;  and  in  its  reverberating  stroke, 
(for  it  is  sure  to  make  one),  cuts  the  assailant  as  deeply  as  he 
had  wounded  his  antagonist.  Another  generation  must  pass, 
before  this  battle  will  be  over.  And  then,  when  time  has 
shown,  beyond  contradiction,  that  all  the  calculations  of  prog- 
nosticators  about  the  times  designated  in  Daniel  and  the 
Apocalypse  are  clearly  frustrated,  confidence  in  such  inter- 
pretations will  vanish  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  pope  seen 
by  John,  and  described  by  him  !  Then,  in  John's  time,  (i.  e. 
about  A.  D.  68  when  the  Apocalypse  was  written),  there  had, 
according  to  Rev.  17:  10,  already  been  Jive  popes  who  were 
dead ;  one  was  then  living  and  reigning ;  and  one  then  to 
come,  whose  time  would  be  short.  And  besides  this — what  a 
precious  consolation  to  the  poor  bleeding  and  disconsolate 
churches  of  that  period,  to  be  told,  that  out  of  the  bosom  of 
that  very  church  and  religion  which  they  so  loved  and  hon- 
oured, would  spring  the  most  wicked,  formidable,  persecuting, 
and  permanent  enemy  that  the  church  had  ever  seen!  Con- 
solation^ with  a  witness  ! 


UNDER  THE  OOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  413 

Sed  manum — There  is  no  end  to  abuses  of  this  sort, 
whether  of  the  Old  Testament  or  of  the  New.  Yet  even  the 
sacred  cause  of  true  Protestantism  cannot  defend  them,  or 
apologize  for  them.  It  must  be  true,  that  this  cause  invites  to 
the  use  of  no  false  armour ;  it  asks  for  no  pious  fraud  to  sup- 
port it.  It  regards  the  oracles  of  God  as  so  immeasurably 
elevated  above  all  human  conceits  or  party  feeling  or  effort, 
that  it  would  scorn  to  employ  means  so  little  worthy  of  con- 
fidence as  those  in  question. 

I  must  say  one  word,  before  I  lay  down  my  pen,  in  respect 
to  some  GENERAL  VIEWS  of  this  great  subject,  viz.  the  use  of 
the  Old  Testament. 

There  are  not  a  few  persons,  who  seem  to  feel,  that  if  the 
Old  Testament  is  a  work  of  inspiration,  it  must  stand  on  the 
same  level  with  the  New,  and  be  equally  obligatory.  There 
is  something  of  truth  in  this,  and  not  a  little  of  error.  It  is 
true,  that  whatever  God  has  sanctioned,  is  of  divine  authority. 
It  is  true,  at  any  rate  in  my  apprehension  it  is,  that  the  wri- 
ters of  the  Old  Testament  "  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost;"  2  Pet.  1:  21.  But  then  comes  the  all  im- 
portant inquiry  :  Did  what  they  said  have  relation  to  the  church 
Jewish,  or  the  church  Christian  ?  Did  it  concern  the  Hebrexo 
nation  only  for  a  time,  and  in  their  peculiar  circumstances  ; 
or  did  it  relate  to  the  immutable  principles  of  piety  and  sound 
morality  ?  God  may  give  commands  respecting  things  that 
are  temporary,  as  well  as  those  which  are  lasting.  It  is  no 
derogation  from  his  authority,  or  from  the  importance  of  the 
Old  Testament,  that  temple,  and  priesthood,  and  sacrifices, 
and  oblations,  and  purifications,  and  distinctions  between 
clean  and  unclean,  have  passed  away  and  are  no  more.  And 
so  all  that  was  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew  nation  and  their  par- 
ticular condition  has  passed  away.  Our  only  difliculty  con- 
sist, sin  finding  the  boundaries  between  the  loccd  and  temporal 
and  the  permanent.  But  there  is  one  simple  principle  that 
covers  all  this  ground.  The  main  difficulty  left  is,  the  appli- 
cation of  it  in  some  of  the  nicer  cases.  The  old  maxim  of 
the  civilians,  in  regard  to  laws  that  are  ancient,  when  the 

35* 


414  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

question  arises,  whether  they  are  still  in  force,  is :  3fanente 
ratione,  manet  ipsa  Lex  ;  i.  e.  so  long  as  the  reason  of  the 
law  continues,  the  law  itself  is  in  full  force.  This  is  the  com- 
pass to  guide  us,  in  traversing  the  whole  ground  from  the  be- 
•ginning  of  Genesis  to  the  end  of  Malachi.     All   that  is 

FOUNDED  IN  THE  PERPETUAL  RELATIONS  OF  MEN  TO  GOD, 
TO  EACH  OTHER,  AND  TO  THEMSELVES,  AND  WHICH  IS 
THE  SUBJECT  OF  PRESCRIPTION,  COMMAND,  OR  INSTRUC- 
TION ON  THE  PART    OF    HEAYEN,    IS    PERMANENT. 

But  even  in  cases  of  this  nature,  whatever  there  is  in  any 
command  or  instruction,  which  concerns  merely  the  manner 
of  the  thing,  and  not  the  essential  nature  of  the  duty,  is  no 
longer  obligatory  on  us.  We  have  a  new  and  a  better  Tes- 
tament than  the  ancient.  In  itself  it  is  a  sufficient  guide. 
But  we  should  thankfully  accept  whatever  of  confirmation  or 
illustration  of  our  Christian  duties,  there  is  in  the  ancient 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  Even  from  the  ten  commandments,  as 
we  have  seen,  something  in  respect  to  the  manner  of  promis- 
ed reward,  or  of  threatened  punishment,  is  to  be  abated. 

If  any  one  now  should  demand  of  me,  to  lay  down  a  rule 
so  precise  and  particular,  that  every  reader  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament may  judge  with  certainty  in  every  possible  case,  what 
is  local  and  temporary,  and  what  is  permanent,  I  can  no 
more  do  this,  than  I  could  prescribe  a  rule  in  hermeneutics 
•which  would  exempt  all  men  from  actual  error  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  figurative  language  of  the  Bible.  The  gen- 
eral principles  that  I  have  now  developed  are  plain,  practical, 
and  certain  in  their  result  when  rightly  applied.  The  power 
to  make  such  an  application  of  them  depends  not  on  me,  but 
on  the  gift  of  Heaven,  and  the  efforts  of  the  inquiring  to 
qualify  themselves  for  the  work.  I  can  only  speak  my  good 
■wishes  for  inquirers  ;  which  are  that  they  may  meet  with  de- 
sired success.  Nothing  but  the  want  of  skill  or  tact,  stands 
in  the  way  of  acquiring  that  which  they  seek. 

Of  one  thing  I  am  fully  persuaded,  which  is,  that  a  proper 
use  of  the  Old  Testament  will  be  made  in  all  cases,  by  no 
one  who  cleaves  to  the  notion,  that  because,  the  Hebrew 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  415 

Scriptures  were  inspired,  they  are  therefore  absolutely  perfect. 
Such  perfection  belongs  not  to  a  prefatory  or  merely  introduc- 
tory dispensation.  It  is  only  a  relative  perfection  that  the 
Old  Testament  can  claim  ;  and  this  is  comprised  in  the  fact, 
that  it  answered  the  end  for  which  it  was  given.  It  was  given 
to  the  world,  or  to  the  Jewish  nation,  in  its  mmority.  It  was 
given  to  "  the  heir,  when  he  was  under  tutors  and  governors, 
and  differed  not  from  a  servant,  although  he  was  lord  of  all." 
It  seems  difficult  for  some  to  beheve,  that  God  has  dealt  with 
the  world,  as  he  does  with  each  individual.  There  is  a  state 
of  infancy,  of  childhood,  of  youth,  of  maturity,  of  old  age. 
The  same  person  is  an  actor  in  all  these  stages.  And 
so  it  has  been,  and  will  be,  with  the  world  of  mankind.  The 
world  has  had  its  infancy,  its  childhood,  its  youth  ;  it  is  slow- 
ly approaching  its  maturity.  As  to  its  old  age,  I  trust  it  will 
be  like  the  hoary  head  of  him  who  is  found  in  the  way  of 
righteousness — a  crown  of  glory.  Why  now  should  any  one 
insist  that  a  revelation  adapted  to  its  minority  should  be  as 
ample  and  complete  in  its  requirements,  as  a  revelation  in- 
tended for  its  most  perfect  state  ?  Divine  Providence  does 
not  convert  whole  nations  in  a  day,  from  their  sin  and  igno- 
rance. Slow  has  always  been  the  process  and  progress.  One 
third  or  more  of  the  time  that  the  race  of  men  have  existed, 
they  had  no  Bible.  It  was  not  until  more  than  a  thousand  years 
after  the  composition  of  the  Old  Testament  commenced,  that 
it  was  completed.  Why  was  it  not  all  given  at  once  ?  And 
why  was  not  a  revelation  in  writing  given  to  the  antediluvi- 
ans ?  Why  did  not  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  write  one  ? 
Can  any  one  answer  these  questions,  except  in  the  way  in 
which  I  have  already  answered  them  ?  The  race  of  man,  as 
a  whole,  has  all  the  different  stages  of  development  assigned 
to  it. 

Let  us  now  proceed  a  step  further.  With  the  exception  of 
such  sins  as  were  highly  dishonorable  to  God  and  injurious  to 
the  welfare  of  men,  the  rules  of  duty  were  not  in  all  cases 
strictly  drawn.  So  our  Saviour  seems  to  have  regarded  the 
matter.      When  he  reproached  the  Pharisees  for  the  fre- 


416  §  22.    USE    OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

quency  of  divorces  which  they  allowed,  and  they  appealed  to 
Moses  as  sanctioning  it,  Jesus  replied  and  said  :  "  Moses,  he- 
cause  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts,  suffered  you  to  put  away 
your  wives  ;  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so ;"  Matth. 
19:  8.  I  am  well  aware,  that  there  are  casuists  at  the  pre- 
sent day,  who  think  Moses  to  have  judged  very  wrongly  in 
this  case.  And  so  in  regard  to  his  permission  of  slavery,  and 
some  other  things.  We  cannot  reason,  I  allow,  in  all  cases 
with  entire  certainty,  as  to  what  is  allowable  under  the  Gos- 
pel, because  it  was  allowed  under  the  old  dispensation.  Po- 
lygamy was  allowable ;  and  if  concubinage  was  not,  it  was 
generally  practised,  and  does  seem  to  have  been  regarded  as 
not  forbidden,  but  only  regulated.  Slavery  was  allowed. 
Great  latitude  of  divorce,  at  the  will  of  the  husband  (but  not 
of  the  wife)  was  allowed.  Does  the  Gospel  allow  any  of 
these  ?  I  know  that  some  serious  and  well-meaning  men  are 
disposed  to  argue,  that  the  Gospel  allows  of  slavery.  It  is  my 
opinion  also,  that  where  it  has  become  a  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  any  society  of  men,  the  Gospel  does  not  require  the 
whole  system  to  be  broken  up  and  abandoned  in  a  single  day  ; 
for  this  might  endanger  the  welfare  of  the  whole.  But  I  can 
never  entertain  a  doubt,  that  the  precepts  and  principles  of 
the  Gospel  forbid  the  making  of  slaves.  When  it  is  required 
of  us,  that  we  should  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves  ;  and  in 
explanation  of  this  it  is  also  required,  that  we  should  do  to 
others  whatever  we  would  that  others  should  do  to  us ;  and 
when,  with  all  this,  it  is  expressly  declared  that  God  has 
made  of  omE  blood  all  the  nations  that  dwell  on  all  the  face 
of  the  earth  ;  I  understand  this  as  settling  all  questions  respect- 
ing any  slavery,  which  is  not  the  result  of  crime  or  a  forfeit- 
ure of  liberty  by  evil-doing,  or  of  voluntary  compact  on  the 
part  of  the  slave. 

Moses  then  did  allow — the  ancient  dispensation  did  allow 
— of  some  things  which  are  no  longer  permitted.  In  this  an 
important  principle  is  involved.  The  Old  Testament  moral- 
ity, in  respect  to  some  points  of  relative  duty,  is  behind  that 
of  the  Gospel.     Why  then  should  we  regard  the  Old  Testa- 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  417 

ment  as  exhibiting  an  absolute  model  of  perfection,  in  its  pre- 
cepts and  its  doctrines  ?  In  some  cases,  most  plainly  this  is 
not  true.  It  needs  discretion  and  judgment,  then,  to  know 
how  to  argue  properly  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New. 
But  why  should  the  Old  Testament  be  reproached  for  not 
having  accomplished  all  which  the  Gospel  has  ?  Was  it  de- 
signed for  such  an  end  ?  Certainly  it  was  not.  Is  it  just 
matter  of  reproach,  then,  that  while  it  is  adapted  to  all  the 
purposes  which  it  was  designed  to  subserve,  it  falls  short  of 
the  higher  mark  which  the  Messianic  legislation  has  reached  ? 
I  trow  not. 

If  preachers  and  teachers  would  but  remember  these  plain 
and  simple  facts,  they  would  be  less  troubled  with  that  in  the 
Old  Testament  whif h  now  presents  them  with  difficulty.  The 
Gospel  is  ever  and  always  the  ultima  ratio  in  all  matters  of 
religion  and  morals.  It  is  the  supreme  court,  the  highest  tri- 
bunal. Whatever  there  is  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  falls 
short  of  this,  or  is  at  variance  with  this,  is  of  course  not  obli- 
gatory on  us.  With  certain  states  of  society,  and  certain 
prejudices  of  men  in  regard  to  matters  toward  which  they  are 
naturally  inclined,  God  has  dealt  more  leniently  in  his  an- 
cient legislation,  than  in  the  Gospel.  "  The  times  of  igno- 
rance God  winked  at."  But  where  light  and  knowledge 
abound,  he  will  no  longer  do  this. 

If  you  ask  then,  as  many  will  doubtless  be  inclined  to 
do,  what  test  shall  we  apply  in  all  cases  to  Old  Testament 
precepts  ?  My  general  answer  would  be :  Apply  to  them  the 
rules  of  the  New  Testament.  Is  it  not  certain,  that  the  New 
Testament  is  a  more  perfect  rule  of  doctrine  and  of  duty  ? 
What  hinders  us  then  from  putting  the  Old  Testament  al- 
ways to  such  a  test  ?  And  if  there  be  cases  that  are  not  spe- 
cifically touched  upon  in  the  New  Testament,  which  are 
brought  to  view  in  the  Old,  yet  analogy  may  always  guide  us 
in  inquiries  of  such  a  nature.  The  spirit  of  New  Testament 
doctrine,  morality,  modes  of  worship  (so  far  as  modes  are 
touched  upon),  is  always  to  be  applied  to  judging  of  our  ob- 
ligations to  the  ancient  Scriptures. 


418  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Will  you  ask  me  then  :  '  Of  what  use  is  the  Old  Testament 
to  us  ?  If  it  is  thus  to  be  altogether  subordinate  and  second- 
ary, why  not  dismiss  it  from  the  lofty  eminence  of  an  author- 
ity ?'  I  feel  no  difficulty,  at  least  in  satisfying  myself,  in  re- 
lation to  these  questions.  Is  it  of  no  advantage,  to  be  able  to 
appeal  to  the  ancient  revelation  in  all  cases  of  religious  and 
moral  precept  or  doctrine,  and  to  find  there  the  immutable 
principles  of  virtue  and  piety  sanctioned,  and  thus  to  know 
that  they  are  the  same  in  every  age  ?  Is  it  no  advantage, 
to  learn  how  God  dealt  with  his  ancient  church  for  some 
1500  and  more  years  ?  Is  there  no  advantage  in  having  a 
religious'hisioYj  of  the  past,  which  is  sketched  by  an  unerring 
hand  ?  A  church  history  which  has  a  divine  author  ?  Is 
there  no  gain  to  the  devout  Christian,  i*  seeing  embodied  in 
the  Psalms  and  in  the  prophets,  the  workings  of  piety  in  the 
distinguished  minds  of  ancient  days  ?  Is  there  no  gain  to  the 
ethical  teacher,  in  having  before  him  the  inexhaustible  store 
of  prudential  and  practical  maxims  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  ? 
Have  Christian  preachers  no  sympathies  in  common  with  the 
preachers,  i.  e.  the  prophets,  of  old  ?  The  New  Testament 
gives  us  a  precept,  or  teaches  a  doctrine  ;  is  it  no  satisfaction 
to  find  practical  exhibitions  of  the  precept,  and  confirmations 
of  the  doctrine,  in  the  Old  Testament?  The  Christian  church 
is  built  upon  the  Jewish  ;  not  by  destroying  the  foundations 
of  the  latter,  but  only  by  demolishing  parts  of  the  superstruc- 
ture, in  order  to  make  the  whole  more  perfect;  and  hast  thou 
no  holy  curiosity  to  know  what  the  ancient  foundations  were  ? 
In  a  word,  the  Old  Testament  teaches  that  God  is  all  and  in  all, 
as  well  as  the  New ;  but  from  the  Old  Testament  we  learn 
in  a  peculiar  manner,  that  he  may  develop  himself  in  a  vari- 
ety of  ways,  and  that  he  has  so  done.  True  Christian  liber- 
ality may  be  learned  and  enforced  by  considerations  of  this 
nature,  as  well  as  the  duty  of  submission  and  obedience. 

There  are  imperfections  in  the  ancient  system  ;  but  they 
are  such  as  the  nature  of  the  case  rendered  necessary.  They 
are  in  accordance  with  the  {)rinciple  of  the  slow  and  gradual 
amendment  of  the  race  of  man.     The  record  of  our  infancy 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  419 

and  childhood,  if  it  could  be  fully  placed  before  us,  would 
create  a  deep  interest  in  the  breast  of  every  individual  so  far 
as  his  own  story  is  concerned.  Why  then  should  the  record 
of  the  church's  infancy  be  spurned  at,  as  though  it  was  not 
deserving  of  our  attention  ? 

But  I  have  said  enough.  It  is  time  to  withdraw  my  hand. 
And  this  I  will  do,  as  soon  as  I  have  said  a  few  words  on  the 
general  subject  of  charges  made  by  Mr.  Norton,  against  the 
morality  and  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  writings.  ^ 

It  is  not  my  object  to  enter  at  all  into  any  discussion  on 
these  points.  I  have  said,  at  the  first,  that  I  should  leave 
these  matters  to  be  canvassed  by  others.  Enough  that  I  have 
shown  the  fact,  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  admitted  as 
divine  and  authoritative  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  They 
must  have  had  the  same  difficulties  before  their  minds,  that 
we  now  have.  But  these  did  not  hinder  their  forming  an 
opinion  in  favour  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  How  can  the  Old  Testament  be  so  vile 
a  book  as  Mr.  Norton  represents  it  to  be  ?  Why  have  not 
Christians  of  every  age  been  stumbled  by  it  ?  And  yet  they 
have  not.  In  some  way  or  other,  they  have  been  brought  to 
feel  very  differently  from  Mr.  Norton  in  respect  to  it.  Is  it 
that  they  have  had  no  sensitive  consciences  ?  No  keen  dis- 
cernment of  TO  xalov  and  to  tzqettov  ?  I  trust  not.  Mr. 
Norton  has  scanned  Old  Testament  matters  in  the  hght  of 
New  Testament  revelation,  and  then  passed  sentence  of  con- 
demnation upon  the  imperfect,  because  it  is  not  perfect.  Is 
this  equitable  dealing  ?  Is  it  any  proof  that  sacrifices  and 
offerings  were  not  divinely  authorized  of  old,  because  they 
are  abolished  now  ?  Is  it  any  satisfactory  objection  against 
this  or  that  specific  thing  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  the  New 
has  better  arranged  or  modified  it?  Is  it  conclusive  against 
the  history  or  character  of  David  and  other  potentates,  that 
they  did  things  in  war,  which  were  common  in  those  days, 
but  which  the  Gospel  and  a  better  state  of  things  now  forbid  ? 

^.But  I  have  done.  Others  will  doubtless  meet  Mr.  Norton, 
on  grounds  of  this  nature  which  he  has  occupied.     If  they 


420  §  22.   USE   OF   THE    OLD   TESTASIENT 

have  enlightened  and  adequate  views  of  the  real  difference 
between  the  Christian  and  the  ancient  dispensation,  they  need 
not  fear  the  issue  of  the  contest.  How  can  we  properly  claim 
wisdom  and  light  so  superior  to  that  of  the  founders  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  to  reject  the  books  which  they  have  sanctioned  ? 
This  is  the  direct,  fair,  and  simple  question.  Let  those  affirm 
that  we  may  make  such  a  claim,  who  have  made  up  their 
minds,  that  we  are  not  bound  by  their  decision.  I  must  be- 
lieve, that  the  disciple  is  not  above  his  Master. 

One  thing  is  plain  from  the  present  state  of  religious  dis- 
pute among  us  ;  and  this  is,  that  the  time  has  now  come,  when 
the  advocates  of  revelation  are  to  be  separated  from  its  op- 
posers.  How  can  two  walk  together,  unless  they  are  agreed  ? 
I  do  not  say,  agreed  in  all  the  minutiae — the  detail  of  religious 
sentiments,  but  in  respect  to  the  very  basis  of  all  which  is 
properly  called  Christianity.  If  there  be  no  revelation,  there 
is  no  Christianity  ;  and  if  there  be  a  New  Testament  and  a 
Christian  religion,  then  there  is  an  Old  Testament  'which  is 
entitled  to  our  high  regard,  our  attentive  study,  and  a  listen- 
ing ear. 

It  has  become  plain,  that  the  battle  which  has  been  going 
on  over  most  European  ground  for  these  forty  or  fifty  years 
past,  has  at  last  come  even  to  us,  and  we  can  no  longer  de- 
cline the  contest.  Unbelief  in  the  Voltaire  and  the  Thomas 
Paine  style  we  have  coped  with,  and  in  a  measure  gained  the 
victory.  But  now  it  comes  in  the  shape  of  philosophy,  lite- 
rature, criticism,  philology,  knowledge  of  antiquity,  and  the 
like.  Hume's  arguments  against  miracles,  which  some  had 
thought  to  be  dead  and  buried,,  have  been  exhumed,  clothed 
with  a  new  and  splendid  costume,  and  commended  to  the 
world  by  many  among  the  most  learned  men  in  Europe.  Be- 
fore these,  all  revelation  falls  alike,  both  Old  Testament 
and  New.  And  if  Mr.  Norton  remonstrates,  as  he  does, 
against  the  sophistry  of  these  arguments,  yet  he  leaves  us,  af- 
ter all,  just  where  he  found  us.  None  of  the  Old  Testament, 
according  to  him,  can  be  relied  on.  The  New  can  be  trusted 
only  in  cases  where  what  is  said  agrees  with  our  own  view 


UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION.  421 

of  tilings.  This  is  honestly  and  plainly  his  simple  position. 
I  prefer  to  meet  De  Wette  and  JMr.  Parker's  views.  We 
know  where  to  find  them.     We  cannot  well  mistake  them. 

Will  it  be  taken  in  good  part,  (as  it  is  meant),  if  I  say  one 
word  to  another  and  diiferent  class  of  men?  Cum  pace  omnium. 
I  would  say  :  Let  those,  now,  who  have  stood  aloof  so  long 
as  to  the  matter  of  acquaintance  with  German  productions, 
ask  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  contest  in  hand,  in  the  shape 
that  it  has  assumed.  Have  we  not  a  right  to  expect  from 
them,  at  least,  that  they  will  show  their  faith  by  their  works  ? 
What  I  mean  is :  Have  we  not  a  right  to  expect  that  they 
will  enter  into  the  battle  which  is  going  on,  clad  with  the 
panoply  of  days  of  yore,  which  they  regard  as  the  only  trusty 
armour  ?  For  one,  I  will  bid  God  speed  to  every  stroke 
which  they  may  strike  in  this  way,  provided  it  does  any  exe- 
cution. It  does  not  look  well  for  them  to  shrink  from  the 
contest,  after  all  that  they  have  so  long  and  often  said  to  ex- 
cite suspicion  of  others  who  have  pursued  a  somewhat  dif- 
ferent course  of  study,  and  to  cover  their  names  with  a  kind  of 
reproach.  The  time  of  trial  for  both  parties  (if  they  must  be 
so  named)  has  now  come.  No  one  will  deny  this.  For  ray- 
self,  I  shall  with  all  my  heart  rejoice,  if  they  show  themselves 
ready  and  prepared  to  meet  it.  At  least  they  have  had  suf- 
ficient time  to  make  preparation ;  and  the  religious  public 
have  long  since  expected  something  to  meet  the  allegations  of 
Mr.  Norton.  In  the  meanwhile,  I  have  had  other  engage- 
ments  that  must  be  met,  and  waited  anxiously  for  some  other 
and  better  advocate  of  revelation  to  make  his  appearance.  I 
hope  it  will  not  be  deemed  a  matter  of  reproach  to  me,  that  I 
have  thought  it  important  for  defence,  to  find  out  if  possible 
whence  the  armour  of  our  assailants  comes,  and  to  meet  them, 
if  it  may  be,  with  arms  adapted  to  new  times  and  new  methods 
of  attack.  I  am  indeed  slow  to  believe,  that  we  of  the  present 
day  are  bound  to  keep  ourselves  ignorant  of  the  strength  and 
resources  of  our  assailants.  The  contest  has  truly  become 
one,  as  I  have  said,  pro  aris  et  focis.  The  question 
whether  Christianity  is  to  be  the  predominant  religion  of  this 
36 


422  §  22.   USE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  ETC. 

country,  or  to  yield  to  philosophic  infidelity,  is  soon  to  be  set- 
tled. Bowed  down  in  some  measure  under  the  weight  of 
years,  and  tottering  under  the  long-continued  pressure  of  bod- 
ily infirmities,  I  have  still,  perhaps  most  rashly,  thrown  my- 
self into  the  arena  of  contest ;  and  there  I  mean  to  remain, 
so  long  as  I  can  wield  a  weapon  however  Hght,  or  hft  up  a 
prayer  to  the  great  Head  of  the  church  for  the  success  of  his 
cause.  The  standard  under  which  I  have  enlisted  waves  aloft 
over  the  battle  ground,  and  bears  the  inscription  in  characters 
of  light:  CHRIST  AND  THE  CHURCH;  THE 
NEW  TESTAJMENT  AND  THE  OLD.  I  hope 
and  trust  in  God  that  I  shall  never — never  desert  it. 


APPENDIX. 


CONTAINING  AND    EXHIBITING  THE    MOST    IMPORTANT  DOCUMENTS,  EX- 
CEPTING THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  TO  SHOW  WHAT  WERE  THE 
ANCIENT  CANONICAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  HEBREWS. 


No.  I. 

Prologue  to  the  Wisdom  of  Siracli.* 

TIoXXoov  Hai  fAeydlcov  7]fiTv  dia  rov  vofiov  xcu  r^v  TTQOcprjrav 
^ai  rojv  aXkcov  rmv  v.ar  avrovg  7]'Ao).ov&i]y.6Tcov  be8ofxiv(ovy 
vmq  (ov  dsov  iariv  maivEiv  rov  "loQaijl  naidEiag  aai  aoqjiag' 
nai  ojg  ov  fxovov  avrovg  rovg  dvayivcocyAOvrag  dsov  iariv  IrtKS' 
rrifxovag  yivEod'ai,  dXXa  xai  rolg  ixrog  dvvaa&ai  rovg  (p(),o(ia- 
'&ovvrag  ^qijaiiiovg  ehcu  ytcu  Isyovzag  xai  yqaqjovrag'  o  tiolti- 
Tiog  \iov  'Ii]aovg  Ini  Tileiov  iavrov  dovg  eig  rs  rr^v  rov  vofiov 
nai  rav  riQocpijr^v  xai  rmv  dXXcov  narQimv  ^i^Ximv  dvdyvco- 
(jiVj  aai  iv  rovroig  Ixavt^v  e'^iv  7teQi7ioiTi(^dnEvog,  TTQoiJx^f]  xat 
avrog  cvyyQdxpai  ri  rcjv  eig  Ttaideiav  y,ai  oo(piav  dnjy.ovrcov, 
OTtcog  01  (fiXofia&Hg,  yiai  rovroov  evo^oi  yevo^evoi,  tzoXXco  ixdX- 
Xov  tnmQogd^mai  did  rrjg  hvofiov  ^icoaecog.  IlaQaxsxXrja&e  ovv 
fxer  evvoiag  Kca  TtQogoyijg  rijv  dvdyvcoaiv  TToieia^ai,  y>cu  avy- 
yvcofiTjv  tysiv  iqi'  oig  dv  doy.co[A8v  rcov  y,ard  ri]v  eQiirjvEiav  tte- 
cpiXoTZovr^fit'vov  riai  rav  Xs^eav  ddvvaiisTv,  ov  yuQ  laodvvaf^isi 
avrd  iv  iavroig  i^Qaiari  Xeyof^eva,  koi  orav  [israx&y  slg  itE- 
Qav  yX^aaav.  Ov  [xovov  8s  ravra,  dXXd  y,al  avrog  6  voj-iog, 
xai  at  7iQoqi7]r8Taf,  aai  rd  Xomd  rmv  ^ip.i(ov  ov  fiiyQav  sysi  ri^p 
diacpoqdv  iv  iavroTg  XeyofASva.  'Ev  yaQ  rm  oydoqj  y.ai  rQiaxocrc^ 

*  This  Prologue  was  probably  written  about  130  B.  C  The  Book 
itself  probably  about  180  B.  C. 


424  APPENDIX  :    SIRACH. 

etEi  Int.  rov  Eveny^rov  ^cwilscog  TraQayEvijd^Eig  eig  Aiyimrov 
y>ai  ovy/Qovioug,  evnov  ov  ^r/.Qag  naidtiag  dqjofioiov.  Jivay- 
aaiorarov  i&t'fir^v  avxog  TZQOQSveyy.aa&cu  riva  cnovdt'iv  y>cu 
(piXoTTOviav  rov  fi£&7]QiiiovEV(jai  TtjvdE  rrjv  ^i^Xov  •  noXlijv  yag 
ayQvnviav  xat  Eniarrniriv  TiQogEVEyAc/.fi  Evog  iv  roi  diaGn^jiaTi 
rov  yQoi'OV  nqog  ro  Ittl  jzEQug  ayovra  ro  ^ip.iov  ixdoox^ai, 
y,al  roig  iv  ry  TiaQoma  ^ovXofiEvoig  (fiXo{xa&Eiv,  TtQoxara- 
Gneva^ofit'toig  ra  j]&7]  iv  vofio)  ^lorEVEiv. 

English  Translation.  Since  so  many  and  important  things 
have  been  imparted  to  us  by  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  other 
[works]  of  the  like  kind  which  have  followed,  for  which  one  must 
needs  praise  Israel  on  account  of  learning  and  wisdom;  and  in- 
asmuch as  not  only  those  who  read  ought  to  be  well-informed, 
but  those  who  are  devoted  to  learning  should  be  able  to  profit, 
both  in  the  way  of  speaking  and  writing,  such  as  are  foreigners; 
my  grandfather,  Jesus,  having  devoted  himself  very  much  to  the 
reading  of  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Other  Books  of  his  coun- 
try, and  having  acquiied  a  good  degree  of  experience  in  these 
things,  was  himself  led  on  to  compose  something  pertaining  to 
instruction  and  wisdom,  so  that  those  desirous  of  learning,  being 
in  possession  of  these  things,  might  grow  much  more  by  a  life 
conformed  to  the  Law. 

Ye  are  invited,  therefore,  with  good  will  and  strict  attention 
to  make  the  perusal,  and  to  take  notice  whenever  we  may  seem 
to  lack  ability,  in  respect  to  any  of  the  words  which  we  have  la- 
boured to  translate.  For  things  in  themselves  the  same,  express- 
ed in  Hebrew^,  have  not  the  same  force  when  they  are  translated 
into  another  language.  Not  only  so,  but  the  Law  itself,  and  the 
Prophets,  and  the  remaining  Books  exhibit  no  small  diversity 
among  themselves  as  to  the  modes  of  expression. 

When,  in  my  thirty-eighth  year,  while  Ptolemy  Euergetes  was 
king,  I  came  to  Egypt  and  took  up  my  residence  there,  I  found 
an  exemplar  of  no  small  learning.  I  deemed  it  altogether  ne- 
cessary for  myself  to  apply  some  diligence  and  industry  to  the 
interpretation  of  this  book  ;  for  1  expended  much  vigilance  and 
study,  during  that  interval  of  time,  that,  bringing  to  an  end  this 
book,  I  might  publish  it  for  those  in  a  foreign  countiy  who  wish 
to  be  learners,  and  so  to  regulate  their  habits  as  to  live  in  con- 
formity with  the  Law. 

Remarks.  It  seems  somewhat  remarkable,  that  this 
grandson    of  Sirachides,  who  appears  not  to  have  visited 


appendix:  sirach.  425 

Egypt  until  he  was  thirty-eight  years  of  age,  should  not  have 
found  a  copy  of  his  grandfather's  book  in  Palestine  ;  particu- 
larly since  the  latter  assures  us  (50:  27),  that  he  was  an  in- 
habitant or  native  of  Jerusalem.  The  fact  that  he  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  is  enough  to  render  this  altogether  probable  ;  for 
the  Egyptian  Jews,  if  we  may  judge  of  them  by  the  case  of 
Philo  the  greatest  of  them  all,  were  moderate  proficients  in 
this  sacred  tongue.  However,  the  fact  that  the  Wisdom  of 
Sirach  had  a  currency,  and  probably  some  weight  of  author- 
ity in  Egypt,  falls  in  well  with  the  history  of  the  other  apoc- 
ryphal books.  Egypt  was  the  hot-bed  in  which  nearly  all  of 
these  somewhat  sickly  plants  sprang  up  and  were  nurtured. 
This  was  natural.  The  Palestine  Jews  were  rigid  Carionists. 
Even  the  weight  of  character  and  learning  which  Sirachi- 
des  possessed,  could  give  his  book  no  great  currency  and  no 
authority  there.  There  the  Jews  all  partook  of  the  spirit  of 
their  leaders  ;  and  so  it  was  out  of  question  to  add  another 
book  to  the  Canon.  But  the  Egyptian  Jews  were  fai'  re- 
moved from  the  mother  country.  They  had  intercourse  with 
Greek  Schools,  philosophers,  and  literati.  Their  views  of 
canonical  limits,  were  probably  less  strictly  defined,  or  at 
any  rate  less  rigidly  adhered  to,  than  those  of  their  Palestine 
brethren.  So,  while  the  grandson  of  Sirachides  found  no 
dcfofioiov  (as  he  calls  it),  i.  e.  no  copy,  exemplar,  or  (as  one 
might  translate)  facsimile  of  his  grandfather's  work  in  his 
native  land,  he  found  one  at  Alexandria,  where  was  more  of 
a  literary  taste,  and  less  of  the  feeling  which  dictated  a  rigid 
adherence  to  the  views  and  traditions  of  the  elders,  fi'^ipT. 

For  the  rest,  the  translator  well  appreciates  the  difiiculty 
of  translating  Hebrew  into  Greek  ;  confesses  his  fear  of  oc- 
casional error,  and  begs  for  the  indulgence  of  the  reader,  as 
well  as  for  the  exercise  of  his  discrimination.  He  does  not, 
therefore,  lay  claim  to  any  inspiration  on  his  part.  But  how 
is  this  matter  in  respect  to  the  author  of  the  book  ?  The  rea- 
der, by  referring  to  p.  2J:1  above,  will  see,  that  while  he 
omits  making  a  direct  claim  to  the  office  of  a  prophet,  (which 
he  doubtless  knew  would  be  controverted  and  denied),  he  has 

36* 


426  APPENDIX  :    SIRACH. 

still  intended  to  be  placed  at  the  side  of  prophets,  and  take 
rank  among  the  favourite  disciples  of  Solomon.  The  whole 
work  is  an  ambitious  imitation  of  this  kin^j's  writinsfs.  Even 
the  nartQcov  v^vog  near  the  close,  appears  to  have  had  its 
•origin  in  the  eulogy  of  Wisdom  in  Prov.  viii.  Moreover  the 
book  has  many  very  fine  sayings  and  sentiments  in  it.  I 
■doubt  not  that  it  was  much  better  written  in  Hehreio,  than  it 
now  appears  to  be  in  Greek ;  and  I  fully  accede  to  what  the 
translator  says  about  his  inability  adequately  to  express  the 
Hebrew  original  in  the  Greek  language.  The  Greek  of  his 
preface  at  least,  (which  of  course  is  all  his  own),  has  so  near 
an  approach  to  barbarism  in  its  idiom,  in  the  disjointed  con- 
nection of  the  sentences,  and  in  the  use  of  some  of  the  particles 
(e.  g.  7«(>),  as  to  show  that  the  writer  expressed  himself  with 
much  difficulty,  and  in  the  true  style  of  a  foreigner.  And  so 
it  is  with  much  of  his  translation.  Still,  it  is  Hebrew-  Greek, 
and  even  better  than  some  of  the  Septuagint.  I  have  done 
ray  best  to  give  the  ideas  of  the  'preface  ;  but  I  have  been 
compelled  to  use  some  freedom  in  translating,  in  order  to  make 
the  version  bearable.  Whether  I  have  hit  the  exact  shade  of 
the  original  meaning  in  all  cases,  is  of  no  importance  to  my 
present  object.  That  part  for  which  the  whole  is  translated, 
is  quite  plain  and  intelligible. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  asking  here  :  If  the  Jews  were  so  fa- 
cile as  to  the  admission  of  new  books  into  the  canon,  (e.  g. 
Daniel,  many  of  the  Psalms,  Jonah,  etc.),  at  a  period  so  late 
.as  the  Maccabaean  times,  how  came  it  about,  that  the  Wis- 
dom of  Sirachj  written  at  Jerusalem  and  before  these  times, 
and  making,  as  we  have  seen,  no  small  claims  on  admission 
to  an  elevated  place,  was  not  even  to  be  found  in  Palestine 
some  fifty  years  after  this,  but  was  lighted  upon  only  among 
the  distant  Egyptians  ?  Consistency  is  a  jewel  of  some  val- 
ue ;  and  if  so,  why  do  not  those  confident  neological  critics, 
who  so  often  hoist  the  standard  on  which  is  inscribed  MAC- 
CABAEAN, and  fight  in  earnest  under  this  banner, — why 
do  they  not  show  us  some  good  and  satisfactory  reason  for  the 
exclusion  of  such  books  as  the  Jioqiia  ZeiQcc/^  from  the  Pales- 


appendix:  siRAcn.  427 

tine  canon  (and  even  the  Jewish  Egyptian  one),  while  books 
which  they  place  far  below  this,  now  occupy,  and  for  more 
tlian  1900  years  (as  they  concede)  have  occupied  a  place 
among  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Jews  ?  The  v^^hole  af- 
fair makes  greatly  against  their  confident  assumptions. 

I  have  only  to  remark,  that  in  the  first  sentence  of  the 
Prologue,  if  TZQOCfijKav  be  regarded  as  referring  to  prophetical 
hooks,  (and  sol  have  taken  it),  then  the  uVmv  which  follows 
must  also  mean  other  hooks.  I  suppose  the  ii'AoXov&r^-AozMVj 
in  this  case,  to  refer  to  the  order  of  arrangement  in  the  Ca- 
non, which  had  been  and  still  continued,  (the  appropriate 
sense  of  the  Perf.),  rather  than  to  the  time  of  writing.  Pro- 
phets, according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  were  all  the  writers  of 
the  Scriptures  ;  so  that  7tQoq]i]TMV  specially  if  compared  with 
the  preceding  vofiov,  would  seem  to  mean  the  hooks  so-called, 
in  the  case  before  us.  But  still  the  participle  uxoXov&r^xo- 
Tcov  may  appear  rather  to  indicate  persons  who  followed  the 
so-called  prophets  (also  considered  as  persons),  if  we  look  to 
the  xaz  avzovg  by  which  it  is  accompanied.  So  De  Wette 
has  taken  it.  I  do  not  consider  this  construction,  however, 
as  being  certain ;  for  the  gender  of  avtovg,  if  it  refers  to 
books,  would  in  this  case  be  regulated  by  its  antecedent  nqo- 
Cfr^Tcov.  In  case  prophets  means  persons,  then  the  prophets, 
who  were  the  authors  of  the  books  belonging  to  the  Old 
Testament  which  bear  their  names,  are  meant,  and  the  others 
who  have  followed  must  mean  other  writers  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  who  lived  after  them.  But  this  can  be  understood 
only  as  to  the  greater  portion  of  them ;  for  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
and  in  particular  Malachi,  have  always  been  regarded  by  the 
Jews  as  among  the  latest  writers  in  their  canon.  Difficulties 
therefore  lie  in  the  way  of  De  Wette's  interpretation.  Anal- 
ogy with  the  passage  in  the  second  sentence — "  the  law,  the 
prophets,  and  the  other  patrical  books" — would  rather  plead 
for  the  interpretation  which  I  have  put  upon  the  passage, 
notwithstanding  the  difficulty  in  respect  to  the  participle  «xo- 
7,01;  i^/;xo  rear. 

Finally,  liav  alloov  ttcctqicov  ^ipJoov,  with  the  definite  ar- 


42$  appendix:  philo. 

tide  prefixed,  and  placed  by  the  side  of  rov  vofiov  and  tmv 
7ZQoq}i]rcjv  which  must  in  their  very  nature  be  definite,  does 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  limit  the  other  books  in  question 
here,  to  the  complement  or  remainder  of  the  books  which 
made  up  the  holy  Scriptures.  The  triplex  division,  there- 
fore, as  in  later  times,  lies  on  the  very  face  of  this  whole  rep- 
resentation. The  nature  of  the  appeal  takes  it  for  granted, 
that  this  was  well  known,  and  would  be  universally  under- 
stood. Of  course,  the  usage  of  thus  dividing  the  Scriptures, 
must  have  been  established  for  a  considerable  period,  anterior 
to  that  in  which  the  translator  wrote,  and  anterior  to  the  age 
of  his  grand-father. 


No.  II. 

Passages  in  the  Vita  Contemplativa  of  Philo  Judaeus. — 0pp.  ZZ".  p.  475 
edit.  Mangey.  (flor.  A.  D.  40.) 

Philo,  in  praising  a  contemplative  life  and  in  giving  vari- 
ous examples  of  it,  comes  at  last  to  the  Therapeutae  or  Esse- 
nes  (=  t:'^7&j< ,  medici,  healers),  whose  devotional  practices  he 
thus  describes :  ''Ev  ixdaTy  ds  oixia  Uqov,  o  xaXeirai  (jafireTov 
•Aol  fiovaarijQiov,  iv  cp  ixovovfievoi  ra  rov  aefxvov  ^iov  fivat)]- 
Qia  TtXovvzai '  fA^r^dav  eiay.o^i^ovzag,  iatj  notov,  fi?]  airov,  {xi^dav 
ri  Twv  ciXXcov  ooa  TtQog  rug  tov  aw^arog  /(>£/a^  dvayy.ala, 
dXXd  vofiovg,  aai  Xoyia  d-aaTzic&ivta  8id  7ZQoqir]t(av,  xai  vfi- 
vovg  'Acd  za  uXXa  oig  iTnotinxi]  'Aai  evae'^ia  cvvav^ovtai  y,ai 

reXeiovvzai 'EvTvy)^dvovT8g  ydg  rolg  laQoTg  ygdmiaai, 

(ftXo6ocpov6i  trjv  ndzQiov  qjiXoaoq:iav  dXhjyoQOvvrag,  STTSidtj 
cvjA§oXa  tec  trig  Qr^zrjg  aQfir^vaiag  vofii^ov6i  q^vaacog  aTTonanQV- 
fikvr^g,  iv  VTiovoiaig  d?jXovfiavrjg.  "Eazi  da  avzoTg  y,ai  Gvyyqaii- 
(lata  TzaXaiMv  dvdQMv,  dl  zijg  aiQaaaojg  dQXi]ya'zai  yavofiavoi 
TToXXa  [i.v7j(xaTa  zijg  dXXayoQoviiavr^g  Idtag  dnaXmov. 

Translation.  In  every  house  is  a  sanctuary,  which  is  called 
sacred  place  or  monastery,  iu  which,  being  alone,  they  perform 
the  mysteries  of  a  holy  life  ;  introducing  nothing  into  it,  neither 
drink,  nor  bread-corn,  nor  any  of  the  other  things  which  are  ne- 
cessary for  the  wants  of  the  body,  but  the  laws,  and  oracles  pre- 


appendix:  philo.  429 

dieted  hy  the  prophets,  and  hymns  and  other  [ivritings]  by  which 
knowledge  and  piety  are  increased  and  perfected.  .  .  .  Address- 
ing themselves  to  the  sacred  writings  they  philosophize  their 
country's  philosophy,  interpreting  allegorically,  inasmuch  as  they 
regard  those  things  which  admit  a  plain  interpretation,  as  sym- 
bols of  something  that  is  hidden  and  is  indicated  merely  by 
VTTOVoia,  [i.  e.  an  under  or  secondary  meaning].  They  have  also 
writings  of  their  elders,  who,  being  leaders  of  the  sect,  left  many 
monuments  of  their  allegorical  notions. 

A  doubt  has  been  raised  here,  whether  hymns  and  other 
Vwritings']  hy  which  hioivledge  and  piety  are  increased  and 
perfected,  is  meant  to  designate  a  portion  of  the  Scriptures. 
I  do  not  see  that  there  is  good  room,  however,  for  reasonable 
doubt.  The  intimate  junction  of  these  with  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets  ;  the  manner  in  which  their  contents  are  de- 
scribed ;  and  above  all,  the  express  distinction  between  these 
books  and  others  which  were  peculiar  to  the  sect  of  the  Es- 
senes,  and  which  were  composed  by  the  elders  and  leaders  of 
the  sect,  make  it  quite  plain  that  the  hymns  and  other  writ- 
ings belonged  to  the  Scriptures.  Even  if  these  circimistances 
did  not  decide  the  case,  the  fact  that  Philo,  immediately  after 
having  mentioned  these  three  classes  of  books,  speaks  of  them 
as  lEQa  ynduuuTa,  sacred  ivritings,  decides  the  point.  In  the 
days  of  Philo,  then,  the  Jewish  Scriptures  in  the  hands  of 
the  Therapeutae  consisted  of  three  great  divisions,  in  the 
same  manner  as  we  have  seen  in  the  book  of  Sirach.  No 
intimation  is  anywhere  given,  that  the  Essenes  had  a  diffe- 
rent Canon  from  that  of  the  other  Jews.  Indeed,  all  the 
knowledge  we  have  of  them,  would  lead  us  to  reject  this  idea. 
And  as  the  sect  was  ancient,  and  rigidly  adhered  to  the  prac- 
tices of  their  fathers,  we  may  well  draw  the  conclusion,  that 
the  triplex  division  of  Scripture  here  described  by  Philo,  had 
long  existed  in  the  usages  of  the  Jewish  nation. 


No.  III. 
Passage  from  Josephuf:,  contra  Apionem,  Lib.  I.  §  8.     (Born  A.  T>.  37.) 

Ov  yaQ  f^ivQiddeg  §i§Xicov  eiai  nan   i]iuv,  dav[i(^(6v(ov  hcu 


4ioO  appendix:  josephus. 

Iiaiofitvav '  dvo  dt  f.i6v(c  TtQog  roTg  eixoai  Bi^Xia,  rov  navthg 
'i^ovta  1Q0V0V  zi]v  drayQaq^^/jv,  ra  drAaicog  Oeia  7TS7Zi(yT£V[X8va, 
Km  tovrcov  nhrs  fiiv  sari  ta  MoiJascog,  a  rovg  re  vofA-ovg 
TZEQiex^h  >f^^  '^V^  '^V?  dv&Qco7toyoviag  TzaQadoatv  f^^'xQ^  "^^^  ^^' 
rov  teXevTijg.  Ovrog  6  '/Qovog  anoJ.dnu  TQi^xih'cov  oXiyov 
STcov.  'Atzo  8s  rijg  Mcovatcog  telEvziig  iisy^Qi  rr^g  IAqtu^^'q^ov 
70V  fisra  !E!iQt,7iv  TlEQcmv  ^aoiXscog  ccQ)[tjg  [aQx^jg  is  omitted  in 
Euseb,],  01  iitra  MoovgtJv  TZQoqjiJTai  ra  aar  avrovg  TtQaid^iv- 
ra  GvvByQa\pav  iv  tqigI  xal  dsxa  ^i^Xioig.  ^i  8l  Xomai  rta- 
caqeg  vfivovg  eig  rov  '&eov  xai  zoig  dvd^QWTToig  vno&i^xag  rov 
^I'ov  718QL  'i'lovaiv.  "Ano  di  'Aqra^tq^ov  iit'/^Qi  rov  xad^  ruidg 
^Qovov,  yiyqanrai  \isv  VAa(sra  •  marEmg  ds  ov^  ofioiag  tj^icorai 
roig  TTQo  avrojv,  did  ro  ^^  ytvea&ai  r^v  rmv  nqocpr^rodv  d'/.Qi- 
^rj  diadox^v.  /jlr^lov  5'  egti-p  sQycp  Tzojg  ijiieTg  roig  tdioig  yQUfi- 
fiaai  TtsTZiarevxa^ev,  rooovto  ydg  amvog  ijdr]  7iaQc^pjy.6rog, 
0VT8  TtQOC'&eivai  rig  ovdsv,  ovrs  d(peXeTv  avrav,  ovrs  fiera'&ei- 
vai  rezoXfirjytev.  TlaGi  ds  avfAxpvrov  iariv  svd^vg  ix  rr^g  TiQm- 
rtjg  yevsascog  "lovdaioig,  ro  voiiitsiv  avrd  S^eov  doy^ara,  y.ai 
rovtoig  i(A,fitv£iyj  aai  vtisq  avzojv  el  dsoi  d-ijaxeiv  rjdscog. 

Translation.  We  have  not  a  countless  number  of  books, 
discordant  and  arrayed  against  each  other ;  but  only  two  and 
twenty  books,  containing  the  history  of  every  age,  which  are  just- 
ly accredited  as  divine  [old  editions  of  Josephus  read  merely: 
"  which  are  justly  accredited" — \}sia  comes  from  Eusebius'  tran- 
script of  Josephus  in  Ecc.  Hist.  III.  10]  ;  and  of  these,  Jive  be- 
long to  Moses,  which  contain  both  the  laws  and  the  history  of 
the  generations  of  men  until  his  death.  This  period  lacks  but 
little  of  3000  years.  From  the  death  of  Moses,  moreover,  until 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  [Euseb. — '  from  the  death  of  Moses  to 
that  of  Artaxerxes' — and  so  most  of  the  Codices  omitting  aQ^rig., 
reign'],  king  of  the  Persians  after  Xerxes,  the  proi)hets  who  fol- 
lowed Moses  have  described  the  things  which  were  done  during 
the  age  of  each  one  respectiveh',  in  thirteen  books.  The  remain- 
ing/our contain  hymns  to  God,  and  rules  of  life  for  men.  From 
the  time  of  Artaxerxes,  moreover,  until  our  present  period,  all 
occurrences  have  been  written  down  ;  hut  they  are  not  regarded 
as  entitled  to  the  like  credit  with  those  ivhich  precede  them,  because 
there  was  no  certain  succession  of  prophets.  Fact  has  shown  what 
confidence  we  place  in  our  own  writings.  For  although  so  ma- 
ny ages  have  passed  away,  no  one  has  dared  to  add  to  them,  nor 


appendix:  josephcs.  431 

to  take  anything  fi-om  them,  nor  to  make  alterations.  In  all  Jews 
it  is  implanted,  even  from  their  birth,  to  regard  them  as  being 
the  instructions  of  God,  and  to  abide  steadfastly  by  them,  and  if 
it  be  necessary  to  die  gladly  for  them. 

Remarks  on  this  passage  are  unnecessary,  as  they  are  so 
fully  made  in  the  preceding  pages,  viz.  p.  223  seq.  Of  all 
the  testimony  among  ancient  writers  about  the  Old  Testar 
ment,  this  is  unquestionably  the  most  important.  The  intel- 
ligence, the  connections,  the  official  character,  and  the  integ- 
rity of  Josephus,  all  conspire  to  render  him  worthy  of  the  most 
entire  credit.  The  matter  is  not  one  about  which  he  could 
be  in  doubt,  when  he  speaks  the  views  and  feelings  of  his 
countrymen.  The  latter  part  of  his  testimony  makes  it  quite 
certain,  that  he  did  so  speak  ;  for  he  tells  us  explicitly  what 
the  views  and  feelings  of  the  Jews  had  always  been,  in  refer- 
ence to  their  sacred  books.  To  say  as  Herbst,  many  other 
Romanists,  and  some  of  the  Neologists  do,  that  Josephus  only 
gives  us  his  own  private  opinion,  is  saying  what  is  contra- 
dicted by  his  own  explicit  statement.  The  appeal  to  the 
Talmud,  rather  than  to  him,  to  determine  the  ancient  number 
of  the  sacred  books,  respectively  contained  in  the  division  of 
the  Prophets  and  of  the  Hagiography,  is  altogether  uncritical 
and  inadmissible.  The  admission  of  such  an  appeal  by  Neo- 
logists, in  order  to  maintain  their  favourite  views  about  the 
lateness  of  Daniel  and  the  Chronicles,  shows  fully  that  the 
spirit  of  party  and  of  prejudice  is  not  by  any  means  confined 
to  the  so-called  Orthodox. 


No.  IV. 

Testimony  of  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  (flor.  A.  D.  170),  presented  by 
Eusebius  in  his  Historia  Ecc.  Lib.  IV.  c.  26. 

MeXitcov  ^Ovi]at)up  tqt  adElcpqt  yaiQEiv  *  ineidi]  nolld'Aig  ?/|- 
IroGag  a7zovd{]  rfj  TZQog  xov  Xoyov  )^QcofX8vog  yevtad^ai.  aoi  I-aXo- 
ydg,  8K  re  tov  POfiov  y,ai  xmv  TrQOCpr^tMv  tieqi  rov  ocoztJQog  y.ai 


432  appendix:  melito. 

^i^Xicov  i^ovh]drig  d'AQi^tiav,  nooa  tov  uQidfiov  y>ai  onoia  Tjjv 
id^iv  EitVy  ianovduGu  to  toiovzo  ttqu^ui,  iTziGTUfierog  gov  to 

GTTOvdatOV  7Z8QI  Tljv  TllOTlV,  'AUl  (fllofA.a{yig  TTEQl  TOV  loyOV  ' 
on  TS  fldllGTa  TIUVTOJV  TIO&O)  T(0  71Q0$  QtOV  TaVTa  TlQO'/.QlVEigy 

tzeqI  T/jg  aloji'iov  acoTijQiag  dycoPi^ofitrog'  dveldav  ovv  sig 
Ttjv  dvuToXtjv,  y,ai  tcog  tov  totiov  yEvo\xtvog  tpd^a  iy:)jov)[d^tj 
nal  inQdy^d^ip  xai  uxQi^oog  fiad^cov  to,  Tijg  nalaidg  dia{f^r]y.i]g 
^i^Xia,  VTZoTd^ag  tTiefiwd  aoi '    wv  egti  tu  ovofiaiu  '    Mcov- 

GEWg  TIEVTE  '     ytVEGig,    Eiodog,    XeVITIXOV,     dQld^fw),    dtVTEQOVO- 

fiiov  .  'Ii]6ovg.  Aavij,  Kqitu},  'Povd^,  BuoiIeicov  TEoauQu,  Tza- 
gaXEiTzoiA-tvcov  duo.  '^P'aXiiMv  /la^id,  2^oXoficovog  TzaQOifiiai 
jj  Kul  oocpia,  Ey,y.Xt]6iaoTyg,  daiJia  dof^dzoov,  'Jc6^  •  IlQocpriTdav, 
'Haatov,  'lEQEfiiov,  tmv  dcodty.a  ev  fiovo^i^Xo),  /Javu^X,  'Je^e- 
'AUiX,  LaoQug  •  e^  cov  yai  Tag  Ey.Xoyag  ETtoir^aafiijr,  Eig  e§  pip- 
Xia  diEXmv. 

Translation.  Melito  to  Onesimus  his  brother,  greeting. 
Since  you  have  often  requested,  through  the  earnest  desire  that 
you  cherisli  for  the  word  [of  God],  that  you  might  have  a  selec- 
tion made  for  you  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  which  has 
respect  to  our  Saviour  and  the  whole  of  our  faitli ;  and  since 
moreover  you  have  been  desirous  to  obtain  an  accurate  account 
of  the  ancient  books,  lioth  as  to  their  number  and  their  order  ;  I 
have  taken  pains  to  accomplish  tliis,  knowing  your  earnestness 
in  respect  to  the  faith,  and  your  desire  for  instruction  in  regard 
to  the  word;  and  most  of  all,  that  you,  while  striving  after  eter- 
nal salvation,  through  desires  after  God,  give  a  preference  to 
these  things.  Making  a  journey  therefore  into  the  east  [Pales- 
tine], and  having  arrived  at  the  place  where  these  things  [i.  e. 
scriptural  events]  were  proclaimed  and  transacted,  I  there  learn- 
ed accurately  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  I  here  ar- 
range and  transmit  to  you.  The  names  are  as  follow  s :  Tlie  five 
books  of  Moses,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuter- 
onomy. Then  Joshua  of  Nun,  Judges,  Ruth,  four  books  of 
Kings,  two  of  Chronicles.  The  Psalms  of  David,  the  Proverbs 
of  Solomon  (also  called  Wisdom),  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of 
Songs,  Job,  Prophets :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  the  Twelve  in  one 
book,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra.  From  these  I  have  made  selections, 
distributing  them  into  six  books. 

Remarks  on  this  passage,  sufficiently  copious,  the  reader 
will  find  on  pp.  258  seq.  above.     As  the  earliest  Christian 


APPENDIX  :    OPtlGEN. 


writer  who  has  given  us  a  list  of  the  Old  Test,  books,  and  as 
a  man  of  much  learning  and  distinguished  piety,  his  testimony 
deserves  special  consideration. 


Testimony  of  Origen,  presenxd  in  Eusebiiis'  Hist.  Ecc.  Lib^pT^  c.  25..     >^, 

Thv  ^K^v  Toiys  TTOMTov  ^hjyovfievog  Waliihv,  t-AOeaiv  mnoi- 
r;tai  (P-QiytD^i;)  rov  rcov  If^Qojy  yQucfuv  zi^g  Ttulaiag  dia&iixt^g 
xaialoyov,  ojds  TTOjg  yQcicprnv  y.aza  )Jhv  •  „ovx  dyrotjisov  5' 
that  rag  ivdiaOii'Aovg  ^I'p.ovg,  cog  'E^oaioi  TTUQadidoaotv,  dvo 
y.ai  Eiy.oGi  •  oaog  6  aQi&fwg  rcjv  ttccq  avtolg  aroixEimv  lativJ-^ 
Eha  fiETii  Tiva  imxpEQai  Itycov  '  ^tial  8s  ai  tr/.oai  dvo  §ipM 
xaO  E^Quiovg  aids  •  ^  mtQ  ?]{up  FtvEaig  miyfyQa^^tvij,  na- 
qa  ds  'E^Qdloig  cItto  rtjg  dnxtjg  rijg  ^i^Xov  Bgyold  ,  ottsq 
iatjv  iv  aQxfi  •  ''E^odog,  0  v  a).  S(j  fiw -0- ,  ottsq  iarl  ravza  ra 
ovo^ata-  yJeviTiyov,  0  vi:i  q  d  ,  zal  svAlsasv  'Jqi^iioI, 
l4fii^s(ycpsy.o)d€(ji'  /IsvrsQovoiiiov,  ''Ells  a  d  d  s  ^  a- 
Q}fi,  ovTOi  01  loyoi'  'lijaovg  vlog  Navrj,  'Icogove  ^sv 
A^ovv  KniTa),  'Pov&,  naQ  avtoTg  Iv  sv),  Zcxn^srl^' 
BaGilsiav  ttqmtij,  dsvisQci,  TiciQ  avroTg  tv  Zai.iov7il,  o  &8- 
onhjTog-  Bcmtlstcov  TQirtj,  TeiaQDj,  iv  sj'i,  Ovafifislsx 
Ja^id,  OTTSQ  lax)  ^aoilsidov  /ia^id  •  naQalsmo^svoiv  ttqm- 
zri,  dsvzsQa,  iv  iv),  /I  i^qi]  d'l.  a  ^il  ^,  ottsq  iazl  loyoi  ijiie- 
Qwv '  ''Ea8Qag  TZQazog  y.al  dsvrsQog  iv  sp),  'EI^qcc,  o  iazt 
^oiiOog  '^  ^ip.og  '^Palii6^v,  2: sq:  sq  Oilli^-  iolofiMvzog 
IlaQoijiiai,  MiolMd^'  "EyyhiGiaaztig,  Kcoslsd^'  rcGfia 
clafidzav,  2:Iq  daaioi^-  'llGatag,  V  so  a  id'  'JsQSiiiag 
ovv  {^Q/jvoig  xal  ztj  imozoltj,  iv  m,  'JsQSfiia-  /Janijl^ 
daviijl.  7sl:syu)l,  '/ s  ^s  a i  //^  •  7w|5,  '/ co ^3 •  'isa^^o,  'E a- 
■&i]Q  .  ''E^(o  ds  zovzmv  iazl  xd  Mayy.a^ju'iy.d,  uttsq  STnysyQan- 
rai  I^aQ^ijd-  oaq^avs  si. 

Translation.  In  explaining  the  first  Psalm,  he  [Origon]  sets 
forth  a  catalogical  view  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  describing  them  in  the  following  manner :  "  One  must 
not  be  ignorant,  that  there  arc  twenty-two  hooks  of  the  covenant, 
as  the  Hebrews  reckon  them;  which  is  the  number  of  letters  ia 

37 


434  appendix:  origen. 

their  alphabet."  Then,  after  soine  remarks,  he  adds:  "Moreo- 
ver the  twentij-two  hooJis  of  the  Hebrews  are  these  ;  llic  book  en- 
titled Genesis  by  us,  but  by  the  Hebrews  Bresifh,  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  book,  for  this  means  in  the  beginning  ;  Exodus, 
Oualesmoth,  i.  e.  these  are  the  names;  Leviticus,  Oitikra,  i.  e. 
and  he  called ;  Numbers,  Ammesphekodim  ;  Deuteronomy,  Elle 
JHaddebarim,  i.  e.  these  are  tlie  words;  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun, 
Josue  hen  JVoun  ;  Judges,  Ruth,  ^yilh  them  [the  Hebrews]  in 
one,  Sophetim  ;  Kings  first  and  second,  among  them  one,  Sam- 
ouel,  the  called  of  God  ;  Kings  third  and  fourth  in  one,  Ouamme- 
lech  David,  i.  e.  the  reign  of  David ;  Chronicles  (or  Supplement) 
first  and  second,  in  one,  Dibre  Aiamirn,  i.  e.  accounts  of  tiie 
times;  Ezra  first  and  second,  in  one,  JEzm,  winch  means  helper ; 
the  book  of  Psalms,  Sepher  Thillim  ;  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon, 
Misloih  ;  Ecclesiastes,  Koeleth ;  the  Song  of  Songs,  Sir  Hassir- 
im ;  Isaiah,  Jesaia ;  Jeremiah  with  Lamentations  and  the  epis- 
tle, in  one,  Jeremia;  Daniel,  Daniel;  Ezekiel,  leezkel ;  Job,  Job  ; 
Esther,  Esther.  Besides  these,  there  are  the  Maccabees,  which 
are  inscribed  Sarheth  Sarbene  El. 

The  names  in  Italic,  are  the  representatives  of  the  Hebrew 
names  of  the  books.  Of  the  twenty-two  books,  said  by  Ori- 
gen to  belong  to  Hebrew  Scriptures,  he  .produces  (as  related 
by  Eusebius),  only  twentj-one.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  is  an  error  either  in  the  copy  of  Eusebius,  or  of  some 
of  his  transcribers.  (See  on  this  subject  p.  260  above).  The 
fact  that  E-ufinus,  in  his  translation  of  Origen,  specifies  the 
Twelve  Minor  Prophets  (in  one  book,  as  always  in  ancient 
times),  which  are  omitted  in  the  catalogue  above,  and  also  the 
nature  of  the  case,  (since  Origen  has  said  that  there  are  twen- 
ty-two books),  make  it  entirely  clear  that  Origen's  catalogue 
originally  contained,  or  was  intended  to  contain,  the  Prophets 
in  question. 

In  respect  to  the  Maccabees,  the  Hebrew  title  which  Ori- 
gen has  given  it,  (the  first  book  only  is  meant),  shows  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  the  work  in  Hebrew ;  in  which,  no  doubt, 
it  was  originally  composed.  So  says  Jerome  :  "  Maccabaeo- 
rum  priraum  librum  Hebraicum  reperi.  Secundus  Graecus 
est ;  quod  ex  ipsa  quoque  phrasi  probari  potest ;  i.  e.  The 
first  book  of  the  Maccabees  I  found  in  Hebrew.     The  second 


APPENDIX  :    ORIGEN.  435 

is  Greek  ;  wliicli  is  evident  from  its  phraseology."     In  Prol. 
Galeato.     This  is  the  reason  why  Origen  speaks  of  it  as  be- 
ing among  the  books  of  the  Hebrews.     But  he  expressly 
separates  it  from  their  canonical  books  :  lloj  8l  rovtojv  x.  r.L 
To  count  upon  Origen  as  including  the  Maccabees  in  his  Ca- 
non, as  lierbst  does,  is  strange  enough,  after  Origen  himself 
has  separated  it  by  an  t'^oa,  i.  e.  extrinsic,  abroad,  foreign. 
In  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  title,  as  given  in 
the  unskilful  manner  of  Origen,  who  makes  the  Greek  letters 
the  representatives  of  it,  not  improbably  it  may  be  :  History 
of  the  Princes  of  the  sons  of  God,  i.  e.  K^  ^.:n  ^"nb  r^-nd,  the 
first  word  being  employed  in  its  Aramaean  sense;    which 
would  be  no  improbability,  at  the  time  when  the  book  was 
written.     Other  explanations  may  be  seen  in  Eichh.  Einl.  IV. 
p.  222  ;  but  they  are  less  probable.     The  princes  seem  to  be 
the  Maccabaean  leaders,  and  the  sons  of  God  means  the  party 
of  the  pious  who  clave  to  thfese  leaders.     There  was  another 
apocryphal  book,  also,  extant  probably  in  Hebrew,  in  Origen's 
day,  namely,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach.     But  he  does  not  appear 
to  have  seen  anything  but  the  Greek  copy,  when  he  wrote  the 
catalogue  above. 

I  would  merely  remark  at  the  close,  that  Origen,  from  his 
long  continued  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures,  his  enlightened 
views  in  relation  to  this  subject,  his  integrity,  and  his  long 
residence  both  in  Egypt  and  in  Palestine,  must  have  fully 
known^hat  the  Jews  in  general,  in  both  countries,  thought 
in  respect  to  their  Canon.  One  difficulty  only  remains.  This 
is,  that  Origen  not  only  includes  Lamentations  with  Jeremiah, 
but  also  an  epistle,  or  rather  the  epistle.  What  is  this  ?  Is  it 
the  so-called  Epistle  of  Jeremiah  to  the  captives  at  Babylon, 
which  constitutes  one  of  the  apocryphal  books,  and  consists 
of  seventy-three  verses  ?  So  the  Komanists  affirm.  But  of 
this  I  must  doubt ;  because  no  other  ancient  list  of  the  sacred 
books  has  comprised  this  with  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations, 
excepting  such  as  appear  to  be  copied  from  him.  That  Jere- 
miah wrote  letters  to  the  exiled  Jews,  is  certain ;  see  Jer. 
xxix.     That  some  of  his  predictions  were  written  by  Baruch 


436  APPENDIX  :    ORIGEN. 

separately,  is  plain  from  Jer.  xxxvi.  I  cannot  but  feel,  that 
some  of  the  epistles  named  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah  were 
added  to  it,  at  least  in  the  copy  which  Origen  had,  in  the 
way  of  an  appendage,  instead  of  being  incorporated  with  the 
main  body  of  the  work.  In  the  time  of  Jerome,  the  apocry- 
phal Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  as  Ilerbst  confesses  (Einl.  p.  14), 
was  incorporated  with  Baruch,  as  a  sixth  chapter,  (and  so  of- 
tentimes since)  ;  and  yet  of  this  Jerome  says  expressly  : 
"  Librum  Baruch,  qui  apud  Hebraeos  nee  legitur  nee  hahetur, 
praetermisimus,  i.  e.  the  book  of  Baruch,  which  the  Hebrews 
neither  read  nor  possess,  we  pass  by."  We  must,  therefore, 
either  attribute  error  to  Origen  in  respect  to  the  Epistle  in 
question,  or  explain  it  in  some  such  way  as  I  have  done.  The 
Council  of  Laodicea,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  Hilary, 
also  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  Athanasius,  and  Synopsis  Scripturae 
(in  0pp.  Athanas.),  all  exhibit  the  same,  or  the  like  difficul- 
ties, in  regard  to  the  component  parts  of  Jeremiah,  probably 
copying  in  this  respect  the  representation  of  Origen.  The 
disjointed  and  as  it  were  fragmentary  state  of  Jeremiah  in  an- 
cient times,  (witness  the  Septuagint  Version),  is  in  all  proba- 
bility the  basis  of  this  peculiarity  in  some  of  the  ancient  lists 
of  the  scriptural  books.  The  matter  has  not  yet  been  fully 
cleared  up  ;  but  the  weight  of  testimony  is  altogether  against 
the  supposition  of  an  apocryphal  book  being  meant. 


No.  VI. 

List  of  canonical  Books  as  made  out  by  tlie  Council  of  Laodicea ; 
(between  A.  D.  360—364.) 

Can.  59.  'On  ov  del  idicorr/.ovg  ipaXfioig  )Jys6&ai  iv  rrj  ix- 
xhjoifi,  ovdt  dxavoviara  ^i^h'a,  dXhl  ^ova  ik  y.avovv/.OL  ZTJg 
xaivijg  xal  nakaidg  5<«t>//x//t:.  Can.  60.  "Oaa  dai  (ii^h'a  dva~ 
yiv(aay.e(70ui  Ttjg  nalaidg  diaO^ijutig  •  d,  Ftveaig  xoafiov.  ^, 
^E^odog  i^  \diyv7iTov.  /,  yhviTixov.  8',  '^Qi&fjoi.  t,  /Jev- 
TEQoro^uov.  GT,  'Jii60vg  Navij.  ^,  KQizal.  'Pov(y.  1],  'Ea- 
^^Q'    '^'i  BuaiXeicjv  «,  ^'.     t,  BaaiXtKav  y,  d'.    id,  Ilaga- 


APPENDIX  :    COUNCIL  OF  LAODICEA.  437 

IsiTToftsva  a,  ^' .  i^',  "EcdQag,  d,i3'.  ij,  §ip.oc  \pal(mv  qv. 
(d\  riaQotf-ucu  ^^alofioovTog.  t£,  'Ey.xXtjaiaGTjjg.  laz,  ^a~ 
ua  a^ficiTCOv.  it,'.,  .loo^.  t/;,  /J(ad8}i(i  TiQoqjTJzai.  i\} ,  Haai- 
ag.     H,  ItQEiuag  xal  BaQOv^,  d^Qijvoi  xai  tTiiGToXai.     x«, 

Translation.  Canon  50.  Private  Psalms  must  not  be  read 
in  the  churcli,  nor  iincanonical  books,  but  only  the  canonical 
ones  of  the  New  and  Old  Testaments.  Canon  60.  The  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  ought  to  be  read:  (1)  Genesis  of 
the  world.  (2)  Exodus  from  Egypt,  (3)  Leviticus.  (4)  Num- 
bers. (5)  Deuteronomy.  (G)  Joshua  of  Nim.  (7)  Judges,  Ruth. 
(8)  Esther.  (9)  I.  Kings,  first  and  second  [I.  and  II.  Samuel], 
(10)  11.  Kings,  first  and  second.  (11)  Chronicles,  first  and  sec- 
ond. (12)  Ezra,  first  and  second  [i.  e.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah]. 
(.13)  The  book  of  Psalms,  150.  (14)  Proverbs  of  Solomon, 
(15)  Ecclesiastes.  (16)  Song  of  Songs.  (17)  Job.  (18)  Twelve 
Prophets.  (19)  Isaiah.  (20)  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  the  Lamen- 
tations and  the  Episdes.     (21)  Ezekiel.     (22)  Daniel. 

The  Hagiograpby  are  here  all  put  in  junction  together; 
Chronicles  is  joined  with  the  historical  books ;  Esther  is 
placed  before  them  ;  Job  after  the  Hagiograpby ;  the  twelve 
Prophets  before  the  others  ;  and  Daniel  along  with  them ;  as 
in  our  Bibles.  But  as  this  Council  used  the  Septuagint,  we 
cannot  say  with  certainty  that  they  followed  any  of  the  usual 
Hebrew  copies  in  arrangement.  How  near  they  come  to  Ori- 
gen,  is  plain  from  the  peculiar  alleged  contents  of  the  book  of 
Jeremiah,  Baruch  and  the  (apocryphal  ?)  Epistle  both  are 
included.  These  were  probably  now  joined  in  one  book, 
(as  in  Jerome's  time),  and  so  they  are  here  named.  The  so- 
lution of  this  phenomenon  which  appears  most  probable  to  me, 
I  have  already  given  in  my  remarks  on  the  list  of  Origen. 


No.  VIL 


Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  (flor.  A.  T>.  350),  in  Ilicrosol.  Catcchesis,  IV.  No. 
33— -36.  0pp.  p.  69.  edit.  Touttei. 

'  4vayiyco6KE  tag  d^eiag  yQacpdg,  rag  eUogi  8vo  ^i^Xovg  Tt]g 
Ttalaidg  dia&tjxt]gf  zdg  vno  rcov  t^8ofi)]iiOVTa  dvo  sQiiJ^vevtav 

37* 


438  appendix:  cyrill. 

iQfii]V8v&eiaag. Tov  vofiov  fi8v  yan  doiv  al  Mco- 

Ok'ojg  noMzai  ntvzE  ^fp.oi. E^tjg  di:,  lijaovg  viog  jYav^j 

xai  xav  Kqitcov  iieza  xfig  'Povx}  ^i^liov  t^dofxov  uQid^fiovfJiE- 

VOV,  TWr  dt  loiTlMV  laT0QlX(OV  ^I^XlWV,  TlQCOZtj  '/.Ul  devTSQa  rdjv 

PaaileKov,  fit  a  ttuq  E'^Qaioig  iazi  ^f^log  *  fira  ds  xai  rj  tqitt] 
xai  /}  zezaQZTj  •  6(ao( ojg  dt  ttuq  avzoig  y.ai  tojv  TtaQuleiTiofit- 
vojv  7]  TtQMzri  xai  ri  devtt'Qa,  fiia  rvy^uvei  ^v^log,  y.ai  tov  "Ea- 
8Qa  1]  TTQOJzi]  xat  ri  dtvrtQa,  fiia  Xtloyiarai '  dojdE'Auzrj  ^t'^Xog 
Tj  'Eoxy/jQ.  xai  ta  f/tv  la  x  o  q  i  y.  a  ruvza.  rd  dt  gt  o  i y  // q  a 
rvyydvEi  Tztvze,  'Ica^i,  yea  ^i^log  ^^'aX^cov,  yui  UaQOifiiai,  yea 
'EyyX?]aia(jTrjg,  y.ai  aofia  aafidzcov,  ETZTayaidsyarov  ^ip.iov ' 
ini  ds  Tovzoig  rd  tt  g  o  q:  ?]  z  i  y  d  Tttvre  '  rcov  dcodtya  TTQacptj- 
rav  Ilia  ^I'^log,  yai  'Hoaiov  fiia,  ycu  'leQ^ijiov  fxEzd  Baoovx 
yai  d^Q/ji'OJv  yui  t7Ti6zo)Sig  '  tiza  'le^eyi/jl '  yai  ij  tov  /Jan?iX 
eiyooTijdtvzsQa  ^i^Xog  zijg  Tzalafag  dia&/jy)ig. 

Translation.  Make  yourself  well  acquainted  with  the  divine 
Scri})tures,  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
were  translated  by  the  seventy-two  interpreters,  .  .  .  The  first 
iive  books  are  of  Moses,  which  is  the  Law.  .  .  .  Then  comes 
Joshua  of  Nun  ;  Judges  with  Ruth,  numbered  the  seventh  book  ; 
of  the  remaining  liistorical  books,  first  and  second  of  Kings 
\l.  II.  Sam.],  one  book  among  the  Hebrews.  One  also  is  the 
third  and  fourth  of  Kings;  with  them  also  the  Chronicles,  first 
and  second,  are  one  book;  the  first  and  second  of  Ezra  [Ez. 
Neh.]  are  reckoned  as  one ;  the  twelfth  book  is  Esther ;  and 
these  are  the  histoi-ical  ones.  The  poetical  books  are  five  ;  viz. 
Job,  the  book  of  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song 
of  Songs,  the  seventeenth  book.  To  these  must  be  added  five 
prophetic  ones ;  '  the  twelve  Prophets,  one  book ;  one  also  of 
Isaiah;  of  Jeretniah  with  Baruch,  Lamentations,  and  the  epistle  ; 
then  Ezekiel ;  and  Daniel,  the  twenty-second  book  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

Here  is  a  different  arrangement  still,  which  is  the  same  for 
the  most  part  as  in  our  present  English  Bibles.  The  only 
exception  is,  that  the  Minor  Prophets  are  placed  before  the 
others.  The  books  of  the  Hagiographj,  as  described  by  Jose- 
phus,  arc  here  all  associated  and  called  ozor/jjod,  i.  e.  mea- 
sured, in  metre,  or  poetic.  The  same  difficulty  also  appears 
here,  as  in  the  Canon  of  the  Laodicean  Council,  in  respect 


APPENDIX  :    GREGORY.  439 

to  the  constituent  parts  of  Jeremiali.  I  have  nothing  more  to 
say  concerning  this  difficuUy,  than  what  I  have  already  said. 
The  list  of  books  was  evidently  copied  from  the  like  source 
with  the  list  of  the  Council,  i.  e.  it  was  probably  made  out 
from  Origen's  Catalogue. 


No.  VIII. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  (flor.  370),  0pp.  II.  Carmina,  XXXIII. 

In  this  33d  Carmen  or  sacred  Ode,  Gregory  has  underta- 
ken, in  accordance  with  the  taste  and  fancy  of  the  times,  to 
throw  the  names  of  all  the  sacred  books  into  measured  verse. 
He  thus  proceeds  with  the  Old  Testament : 

'JaroQixai  [i8v  saai  ^i^loi  dvo'AaidExa  Tzacm, 
Ttjg  aQ'/^aiOTtQtjg  'E^Qca'xTJg  ooqjft^g. 
nQcoTiGTi]  rt'v8(j(g,  til  'Eiodog,  yhviti:<6v7e, 
"EnHt  AQidiAoi,  eiza  devTfQog  AoiAog. 
"Etteit  'Itiaovg,  y.ai  Kqitui'  'PovO'  oydoij  • 
//  88  u'azi]  daxdr?]  re  ^i[:}Xoi,  TiQci^tig  BaaiXiicoVj 
Kai  riaQaXEiTzofiEvca'  io'/^azov"E(i8Qav 'iiEig. 
At  Se  azr^r^Qcu  tiepze,  wr  Tioojzog  ys  'Ic6^y 
"EnEiza  zJavid,  Eiza  zQEig  2JoXof.(o}vz£iai, 
'E'Anh]oia6T7jg,  ccafia,  y.ai  TtaQOffAicu. 
Kai  TTEVxy'  Ofioicog  nvEvnarog  rzQOcpriti'AOV  ' 
Miav  {ie'v  Eiaiv  ig  yoacftiv  ol  dojdEy.a, 
iict^E^  x(u  'yi^ojg,  xat  Mr/^aiag  o  tQizogj 
''Etzeit  7wa^X,  e2z^  'Icovdg,  'A^Sfag, 
N^aoviJL  T£,  '^^^axovfi  re,  xal  ^ocpoviag, 
Ayyaing,  eIzvl  Za/aofag,  Mala'^iug  • 
Mia  ^up  oidE.     zJevzequ  dt  'Hoatag, 
"ETZEify  6  7.h]d^E]g  'jE<)E[(iag  ix  ^QECfovg^ 
Elz  'Ie^^exu'iI,  xai  /tavn'iXov  /«()'^'. 
'/iQyalag  inv  k{}tjxa  dvca  y.ai  e'ixogi.  ^f^Xovg, 
Toig  zojv  E^{)cdo3v  yQaii[.uioiv  uvziO'Ezovg. 

Translation.  All  the  historical  books  are  twelve,  of  the  an- 
cient Hebrew  wisdom.     First  Genesis,  then  Exodus, and  Levit- 


440  APPENDIX  :    GREGORY. 

iciis,  then  Numbers,  then  Deuteronomy.  Then  Joshua,  and 
Judges  ;  Ruth  is  the  eighth  ;  the  ninth  and  tenth  books  are  the 
acts  of  Kings;  then  Chronicles ;.  the  last  is  Ezra.  There  aiejive 
books  in  metre  ;  the  first  of  which  is  Job,  tlien  David  [Psalms], 
three  belong  to  Solomon,  viz.,  Ecc,  Canticles,  Proverbs.  In  like 
manner  there  are  Jive  of  the  prophetic  Spirit ;  twelve  of  these  are 
comprised  in  one,  viz.  Hosea,  Amos,  Micah,  then  Joel,  Jonah, 
Obadiah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and 
Malachi ;  these  make  the  first.  The  second  is  Isaiah,  then  Jer- 
emiah who  was  called  from  the  won)b,  Ezekiel,  and  the  grace 
of  Daniel.  I  have  exhibited  twenty-two  books,  coiTcsponding 
with  the  twenty-two  letters  of  the  Hebrews. 

It  will  be  perceived,  that  in  making  out  twenty-two  books, 
Gregory  has  separated  Ruth  from  Judges,  and  omitted  Es- 
ther. The  same  omission  we  find  in  Athanasius,  and  in  some 
other  cases  ;  but  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  and  of  the  feast 
of  Purim,  in  behalf  of  the  antiquity  of  this  book,  place  it  be- 
yond our  reach  to  call  in  question  its  place  in  the  Canon. 
We  have  found  the  same  omission  in  Melito,  (p.  259  seq.), 
but  have  supposed  it  to  belong,  in  that  case,  merely  to  error 
in  transcribing.  In  Melito  and  in  Gregory,  Ezra  no  doubt 
comprehends  Nehemiah ;  for  such  was  the  usual  custom  of 
the  ancients.  But  in  Gregory,  there  is  an  evident  purpose 
of  omitting  Esther  ;  for  he  has  separated  Judges  and  Ruth,  in 
order  to  make  out  the  twenty-two  books  which  are  the  usual 
number.  It  is  difficult  to  say  what  was  the  inducement  to 
this,  unless  it  was,  that  the  Greek  copy  of  the  Scriptures  in 
his  hands,  embraced  Esther  with  all  the  Alexandrine  inter- 
polations. No  wonder  he  (having  no  acquaintance  with  the 
Hebrews)  rejected  it,  if  such  were  the  case.  Not  a  word  in 
Gregory  about  any  of  the  apochryphal  books  ;  and  yet  he  en- 
titles his  Ode :  tieql  twv  yrijoicov  ^tpu'ov  ttjg  dtonvtvazov 
rQacftjg,  i.  e.  concerning  the  genuine  books  of  the  insj^ired 
Scriptures.  Of  course  he  regards  books  not  named,  as  not 
belonging  to  this  category ;  and  therefore  he  must  have  re- 
jected the  Apocrypha. 

One  other  thing  is  worthy  of  note  here,  viz.,  that  both  Cy- 
rill  of  Jerusalem  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  make  a  triplex  di- 


appendix:    ATIIANASIU3.  441 

vision  of  the  Scriptures  ;  but  not  on  Talmuclic  ground.  They 
divide  them  into  twelve  historical,  fixe,  poetical,  and  fivejo?'0- 
phetical  books  ;  for,  on  the  ground  of  their  ignorance  of  the 
true  nature  of  Hebrew  poetry,  they  never  dreamed  that  the 
prophets  were  mostly  poetic.  Their  division  is  not  a  bad  one, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  built  on  the  matter  and  manner  of  the  books  ; 
with  the  exception  of  their  error  about  the  form  of  prophetic 
composition.  It  is  substantially  adopted  in  our  English  Bi- 
bles. Let  the  reader  note  well,  in  examining  all  these  lists 
of  the  Old  Testament  Books,  that  not  one  of  them  join  Chro- 
nicles or  Daniel  with  the  Kethubim  or  Hagiography. 


No.  IX. 

Athanasius  of  Alexandiia  (flor.  A.  D.  326),  in  an  exti*act  from  his  37th 
festal  Epistle,  inserted  in  0pp.  I.  p.  961. 

Athanasius  prefaces  his  list  of  Sacred  Books  by  the  follow- 
ing remarks : 

"  We  fear  lest,  as  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  a  few  of  the 
simple  may  wander  away  from  their  simplicity  and  purity  by 
reason  of  the  craftiness  of  certain  men,  and  finally  may  begin  to 
take  themselves  to  the  books  called  apocryphal,  being  deceived 
by  their  likeness  to  the  true  books.  I  beseech  you  to  bear  with 
me,  if  I  write  to  you  reminding  you  of  things  already  known, 
on  account  of  the  necessity  and  the  cditication  of  the  church. 
Being  about  to  do  this,  I  shall  employ,  for  the  support  of  my 
undertaking,  the  formula  of  Luke  the  evangelist,  saying  as  he 
did:  Forasmuch  as  there  are  some  wlio  have  undertaken  to 
compose  for  themselves  books  called  apocryphal,  and  to  mingle 
these  with  the  inspired  Scripture,  respecting  which  we  have 
been  fully  persuaded,  as  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word 
from  the  beginning  have  dehvered  to  the  fathers,  it  seemed  good 
to  me  also,  being  exhorted  thereto  by  my  genuine  brethren,  and 
having  made  myself  acquainted  uith  the  subject,  to  set  forth  from 
the  begimiing  and  in  due  order  the  canonical  books  which  have 
been  delivered  to  us,  and  believed  to  be  divine ;  so  that  every 
one,  if  he  is  led  away  by  deceit,  may  learn  well  to  know  those 
who  have  seduced  him,  while  he  who  remains  pure  may  rejoice 
in  having  this  admonition  again  repeated. 


442  APPENDIX  :  ATHANASIUS. 

All  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  then,  arc  twenty-two  ; 
as  many,  accorditi^  to  report,  as  the  alphabetic  letters  of  the 
Hebrews.  In  order  and  name  they  are  thus  :  First  the  Genesis, 
then  Exodus,  next  Leviticus,  after  this  Numbers,  and  tinally 
Deuteronomy.  In  the  sequel  of  these  are  Joshua  of  Nun,  and 
Judges,  and  after  this  Ruth  ;  and  then  follow  the  four  books 
of  Kings,  and  of  these  the  first  and  second  are  numbered  as  one, 
and  the  third  and  fourth  likewise  as  one.  After  these  is  the 
book  of  Psalms,  then  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs ; 
then  comes  Job,  and  finally  the  Prophets.  Twelve  of  these  are 
reckoried  as  one  book;  then  comes  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  witli  Ba- 
ruch  and  Lamentations  and  the  Epistle,  after  these  Ezekiel,  and 
Daniel.    Thus  far  are  set  forth  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament." 

I  have  deemed  it  unnecessary  to  transcribe  the  original 
Greek  here,  as  it  is  so  exactly  like  the  preceding  lists,  except 
in  some  trifling  particulars.  One  of  these  is,  that  Athanasius 
places  Job  after  the  Kethubim,  and  next  before  the  Prophets. 
He  also  omits,  as  has  before  been  remarked,  the  book  of  Es- 
ther. That  it  is  designed  in  him  will  be  clear  from  the  pas- 
sage which  follows,  and  which  he  subjoins  to  his  catalogue  of 
the  New  Test,  books  that  follow  those  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  given  above.     The  concluding  part  runs  thus : 

"  These  are  the  fountains  of  salvation,  so  that  he  who  thirsts 
for  these  oracles  may  be  filled  with  them.  By  these  only  is  the 
doctrine  of  godliness  taught.  Let  no  one  add  to  these,  or  take 
anything  from  them.  By  these  our  Lord  confounded  the  Sad- 
ducees,  saying  :  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures.  To  the 
Jews  he  said,  in  the  way  of  exhortation :  Search  the  Scriptures, 
for  these  are  they  which  testify  of  me.  But  for  the  sake  of  more 
accuracy,  I  have  deemed  it  necessary  also  to  set  forth  in  this 
writing,  that  there  are  other  books  besides  these,  tvhich  are  not 
canonical,  designated  by  the  fathers  to  be  read  by  those  who  have 
recently  joined  us,  and  are  desirous  to  be  instructed  in  the  doc- 
trine of  piety  ;  viz.  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Si- 
rach,  and  Esther,  and  Judith,  and  Tobit,  and  (as  we  call  it)  the 
Apostolic  Doctrine  [didap^  zwv  utiootoImv),  and  the  Shepherd. 
Those  then  being  canonical,  and  these  being  read,  let  there  be  no 
mention  even  of  any  apocryj)hal  book.  These  are  the  inventions 
of  heretics,  w-ho  compose  tliem  at  their  pleasure,  assigning  and 
adding  to  them  dates,  so  that  they  may  have  the  semblance  of 
ancient  books,  and  that  by  this  means  they  may  find  occasion  to 
lead  the  simple  into  error." 


APPENDIX  :   SYNOPSIS  SCRIPTURAE  SACEAE.  443 

This  remarkable  passage  places  the  books  which  we  name . 
ai^ocryi^lud^  in  their  position  as  estimated  by  the  ffithers  in 
general.  They  might  be  read  in  order  to  enlarge  our  Chris- 
tian knowledge  of  religious  things ;  but  they  were  merely 
subordinate  and  secondary.  The  ca?zo?i/caZ  books  were  sepa- 
rated from  them  by  a  wide  distinction. 

Athanasius  evidently  uses  apocryphal  in  the  sense  of  s-pu- 
rious,  ivorthless,  and  not  merely  to  designate  books  not  pub- 
licly read,  as  some  of  the  earlier  fathers  used  it.  I  get  the 
impression  from  what  he  has  said,  in  the  last  paragraph  quoted 
from  him,  that  he  intends  and  expects  the  second  class  of  books 
only,  to  be  read  in  private,  by  recent  converts  desirous  of  ac- 
quiring more  enlarged  religious  knowledge  ;  for  how  other- 
wise could  he  limit  the  reading  to  new  converts  ?  As  he  has 
expressly  named  JSsfher  among  these,  I  do  not  see  how  we 
can  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  he  positively  rejected  it  from 
the  proper  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  makes  twenty- 
two  books,  by  separating  Judges  and  Ruth,  and  omitting 
Esther.  This  is  a  peculiar  circumstance,  both  in  Gregory 
and  Athanasius  ;  but  the  reasons  of  it  we  can  only  conjecture, 
for  we  have  no  certain  clue  by  which  we  can  come  to  a  proper 
historical  knowledge  of  them.  At  all  events,  they  can  have 
no  influence,  (in  the  face  of  so  much  other  testimony  to  the  ca- 
nonical rank  of  Esther),  in  moving  us  to  reject  the  book  as 
they  have  done. 


No.  X. 

SvN'OPSis  ScRiPTtrRAE  Sacrak,  1)}'  ail  unknoAvn  •vvrilcr  of  the  times  of 
Athanasius,  attributed  by  some  to  him,  and  publislied  in  his  W-orks, 
Vol.  II.  p.  126  seq. 

The  Benedictine  editors  of  Athanasius  speak  in  exalted 
terms  of  the  erudition  and  judgment  of  the  writer  of  this  Sy- 
nopsis, whom  tbcy  think  not  to  be  Athanasius.  He  has 
shown  an  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  holy  books,  and 
particularized  each,  by  an  extract  from  the  commencement  of 


444  appendix:  synopsis. 

each  book,  wliicli  lie  subjoins  to  the  name  of  the  book.  To 
spare  room,  I  omit  the  Greek  original  and  the  extracts,  and 
give  here  the  Hst  of  books,  in  his  own  language. 

Translation.  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deu- 
teronomy, Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  Judges,  Rutli,  I.  11.  Kings 
[I.  II.  Samuel]  reckoned  as  one  book,  111.  IV.  Kings  nundjered 
as  one  book,  I.  II.  Clironicles  reckoned  as  one  book,  I.  II.  Ezra 
[Ezra  and  Neliemiali]  reckoned  as  one  book,  Psalter  of  David 
having  150  Psalms,  Parables  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of 
Songs,  Job,  Twelve  Prophets,  viz.  Hosea,  Amos,  31icha,  Joel, 
Obadiah,  Jonah,  Nalium,  Hahakkuk,  Zej)haniah,  Haggai,  Zecha- 
riah,  Malachi,  (these  are  comprised  in  one  book),  Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel,  Daniel.  The  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  twenty-two,  equi\\  in  number  to  the  Hebrew  letters; 
for  they  have  so  many  elementary  signs. 

Besides  these  are  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  ivhichare 
not  canonical  [inspired]  ;  and  these  are  read  only  hy  caterhumens ; 
viz.  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach, 
Esther,  Judith,  Tobit.  Thus  many  are  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  not  canonical.  Some  of  the  ancients  have  affirmed 
Esther  to  be  canonical  among  the  Hebrews;  and  also  that  Ruth 
is  joined  with  Judges  and  reckoned  as  one  book.  In  this  man- 
ner they  make  out  the  complement  of  twenty-two  books. 

The  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  canonical  and  uncanonical, 
are  so  many,  and  of  such  a  kind. 

It  is  easy  to  see,  that  this  is  little  else  than  an  exact  copy, 
throughout,  of  the  list  of  Athanasius.  But  the  writer  is  more 
explicit.  While  he  omits  Esther  in  his  list,  he  gives  us  an  ac- 
count of  a  different  opinion,  viz.  in  favour  of  inserting  it.  So 
he  also  notices  the  usual  manner  in  which  Ruth  was  united 
with  Judges.  He  also  tells  us  that  o?iIy  the  catechumens  read 
the  uncanonical,  i.  e.  uninspired  books,  which  had  been  ap- 
pended to  the  Old  Testament.  This  seems  of  course  to  ex- 
clude the  public  reading  of  them,  at  least  in  the  churches 
within  his  circle  of  knowledge. 

Having  completed  his  list,  the  writer  proceeds  to  give  a 
synopsis  of  the  contents  of  each  book  ;  and  when  he  has  com- 
pleted his  summary  of  the  canonical  books,  he  again  mentions 
that  the  others  are  not  read,  except  in  the  limited  manner 
already  described;  p.  1G8.     It  seems  singular  that  no  men- 


appendix:  EPiPHANiirs.  445 

tion  is  here  made  of  the  Maccabees,  Baruch,  the  additions  to 
Daniel,  Ezra,  etc.  Nothing  can  be  clearer,  however,  than 
that  Athanasius  and  the  author  of  the  Synopsis  reject  the  idea 
of  insjnration,  in  regard  to  what  we  now  name  apocryphal 
books.  But  at  the  close  of  his  work  the  author  of  the  Sy- 
nopsis says :  "  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  are 
doubted  (drnXeyofieva  =  denied),  are  Wisdom,  Sirach,  Es- 
ther, Judith,  Tobit.  With  these  also  are  numbered  Macca- 
bees, four  books,  Ptolemaici  (?),  Psalms,  Canticles,  Susanna. 
These  are  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  are  denied 
{dvTils'/ofisva).^^  As  this  is  quite  an  enlargement  of  his  pre- 
vious list  of  uncanonical  books,  so  it  serves  to  show,  that  the 
latter  class  just  mentioned  did  not  attain  even  to  the  privilege 
of  being  allowed  to  the  catechumens.  An  inauspicious  pas- 
sage to  the  Romish  deutero-canon  ! 


No.  XL 

Epiphaxius  (flor.  A.  D.  3G8),  de  Mensiiris  et  Pondcribus,  c.  xxiii.  Vol.. 
11.  p.  180,  edit.  Petav. 

Epiphanius  has  spoken  in  three  different  places  respecting 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament ;  viz.  in  the  passage  named 
above,  in  Haeres.  VIII.  and  Haeres.  LXXVI.  In  the  first 
two  passages  he  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  books.  The  most 
complete  is  the  one  here  selected. 

He  prefaces  his  list  with  the  following  remarks :  "  The 
Plebrews  have  twenty-two  letters ;  according  to  these  they 
number  their  books,  although  they  are  in  reality  twenty-seven. 
But  since  with  them  five  letters  are  double,  making  in  fact 
twenty-seven,  they  contract  them  into  twenty-two ;  and  so  the 
books  which  are  twenty-seven  are  contracted  into  twenty-two." 
He  then  goes  on  to  give  a  list  of  the  books ;  which  I  copy  here, 
because  the  curiosity  of  the  Hebrew  student  will  be  gratified 
to  learn  how  Epiphanius  pronounced  Hebrew,  and  in  what 
way  he  represented  it. 

riQcortj  BQiarid^y  i]  y^aXeizai  Fsveaig  y.6(jfwv  •  ih;(yi[icoO-,   ij 
"E^odog  tojv  vlojv  'laQaijX  i^  'yiiyvTzzov  '  ovdool'ey.Qd,  t]  h^M~ 
38 


446  appendix:  epipiianius. 

revEtai  yisvitrAov  lovda^i/Q,  y  Icziv  yiQi&[jioi'  iV.tde^a- 
QE^fi,  TO  /Jn'TeQOvofJiov.  zJdjgov,  i]  tov  "Ivioov  toil  Navif  di- 
M^,  i]  TOV  '1(6^  '  diaaocp&ttfx,  ?/  tcqv  Kqitojp  •  diaQov&,  tj  tov 
Poviy  '  oq)£QTel£ifz,  TO  "^VaXziiQiov  '  dt^Quafxi:}[i,  ij.  ttqojtjj  tojv 
naQa7.ei7iO[i£i'03V  •  dt^tiULitifi,  IlaoaXetTzofxsvojv  davztQa  '  de- 
fiovtX,  Buadiiojv  ttqojzi]  •  dudovdafwv^X,  BaoO.eimv  devTtQa' 
(^//«P.«/£v,  Baademv  tqitij  '  8(ia)Myjn,  Baaileiojp  tstuqtii  ' 
8u8aXoj&,  11  rianoifJicov  d8X(at').E&,  'Ey.xXj](7ia(jTf'jg  '  aiQaoi- 
otiii,  TO  'Ai6{ia  Tcjy  Jf(6(iUTCor  •  daO-aQiaaaQa,  to  /icodexa- 

nQOCpilTOV  '    b^OatoV,  tov  TTQOCfJJTOV   'Hoa'lOV  '      dltQEuJoV,  l]  TOV 

'Jentuiov  '  ditUxu]).,  y/  too  'Etuxi/jl  •  didavu)l,  r^  tov  zlari/j). ' 
didtodQU,  //  TOV  "Ea^Qa  ttqu^tij  •  didtadoa,  /}  tov  '^Eadoa  devTt- 
Qu  '  dEa&t](),  /}  T?;g  'Eo&t]Q. 

Tran=latio>\  First  Genesis,  which  is  called  Genesis  of  the 
•world  ;  Exodus,  i.  e.  departure  of  the  sons  of  Israel  from  Egypt ; 
Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy,  Joshua  of  Nun,  Job,  Judges, 
Ruth,  the  Psalter,  I.  II.  Chronicles,  I.  II.  Kings  [I.  II.  Samuel], 
III.  IV.  Kings,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Minor  Prophets, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  I.  II.  Ezra  [Ezra,  Nehemiah], 
Esther. 

I  have  omitted  in  this  version  all  the  Hebrew  names,  and 
Piich  words  as  are  connected  merely  with  the  representation 
of  them.  Although  Epiphanius  was  born  and  brought  up  in 
Palestine,  and  must  have  had'  some  knowledge  of  the  He- 
brew lano-ua*2;e,  the  Hebrew  names  inserted  in  this  list  ai'e  but 
a  sorry  testimony  to  the  accuracy  of  that  knowledge.  How- 
ever, there  is  no  doubt  that  he  has  suffered  from  transcribers  ; 
e.  g.  a  I  QOtGKJEffif  for  t:'<'n'''4'ri ,  where  -f7fr/*in  Epiphanius's  pre- 
sent text  stands  clearly  for  -of//*,  by  a  mistake  of  copyists. 
The  El,  here  and  elsewhere,  represents  the  long  Hhireq  in  He- 
brew. Peculiar  is  his  prefixing  the  Aramaean  "n  to  most  of 
the  names,  which  he  writes  8,  da,  Se,  and  even  did,  8ia,  and 
wdiich  means  of,  i.  e.  book  of  such  or  such  a  name.  The 
name  of  Psalms,  (jqEQitXtiii,  ==5"Snn  ""£&.  In  some  other 
eases,  which  I  cannot  here  particularize,  the  Hebrew  names 
are  doubtless  deformed  by  the  ignorance, of  copyists  ;  e.  g.  ^£- 
^(oveX  =  ^5<^ -'^  ,  8a8ov8tnovEX  =  David- Samuel  ?  etc.  But — 
to  ray  direct  object. 


APPENDIX  :    EPIPHANITJS.  447 

Epiphanius  adds  to  the  list  translated  above,  after  some 
remarks  which  we  need  not  here  repeat :  "  There  is  another 
little  book,  named  Kinoth,  which  means  the  Lamentations  of 
Jeremiah.  The  same,  which  exceeds  the  due  number,  is 
joined  and  united  with  Jeremiah."  He  then  goes  on,  in  the 
fashion  of  the  day,  to  find  corresponding  twenty-ticos,  in  a  va- 
riety of  things  presented  in  the  Scriptures. 

We  perceive  that  the  list  of  Old  Test,  books  is  here  com- 
plete ;  although  the  order  is  diverse  from  all  others  which 
have  been  presented.  Job  is  placed,  for  example,  after  Josh- 
ua; but  in  his  other  list  (Haeres.  VIII.  Tom.  I.  p.  19),  he 
puts  Job  after  Judges  and  Ruth.  In  the  list  above  we  have 
Judges,  Ruth,  Psalter,  I.  II.  Chronicles,  Kings,  etc. ;  in  the 
other  list  Judges,  Ruth,  Job,  Psalter,  Proverbs,  etc.  There 
are  also  other  varieties.  Altogether  compared  and  considered, 
this  father  appears  to  have  been  probably  an  honest,  but  yet 
a  very  hasty  and  blundering  critic. 

We  must  not  omit  wdiat  he  says  of  the  deutero-canonical 
books.  It  runs  thus  :  "  There  are  two  other  books  doubtful 
among  them,  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon; besides  certain  other  books  wdiich  are  apocryphal." 
By  this  I  understand  Epiphanius  to  say,  that  the  two  books 
mentioned  are  doubtful,  and  the  others  clearly  uninspired. 

It  will  be  seen  by  our  next  document,  that  the  reception  of 
the  Apocryphal  books  as  deutero-canonical,  had  begun  about 
this  time  to  make  some  progress  among  the  churches.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  it  had  been  gaining  among  the  more  un- 
learned and  undiscerning,  during  most  of  the  fourth  century. 
Hence  we  are  prepared  for  the  first  manifestation  of  it,  in  a 
public  and  a  kind  of  authoritative  way,  in  the  manner  an- 
nounced by  our  next  extract. 

No.  XII. 

Extract  from  the  Statnta  of  the  Council  of  Hirro,  A.  D.  393.    Mausi, 
Concil.  Coll.  111.  p.  924. 

The  XXXVI.  Statutum  runs  thus ;  Ut  praeter  Script uras 
canonicas  nihil  in  Ecclesia  legatur  sub  nomine  divinarum 
Scripturarum.     Sunt  autem  canonicae  Scripturae,  Genesis, 


448  APPENDIX  :   JEROME. 

li^xodns,  Leviticus,  Numeri,  Denteronomium,  Jesu  Xave,  Ju- 
dicum,  Ruth,  Regnorum  libri  quatuor,  Paralipomenon  libri 
duo.  Job,  Psalteriuni  Davidicum,  Salomonis  libri  quinque, 
duodecim  libri  Propbetarum,  Esaias,  Jeremias,  Daniel,  Ez- 
eehiel,  Tobias^  Judith,  Hester,  Hesdras  libri  duo,  Macchahaeo- 
rum  libri  duo. 

This  needs  no  translation.  I  have  marked  those  books 
which  are  additions  to  all  the  catalogues  hitherto  exhibited. 
The  Jive  hooh  of  /Solomon  of  course  are  Proverbs,  Ecclesias- 
tes,  Canticles,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  Sirach.  Then 
we  have  Tobit,  Judith,  and  I.  II.  Maccabees.  Here  all  the 
books  are  mingled  together  and  stand  under  the  category  of 
canonical.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  this  Council  meant 
so  to  decide. 

No.  xni. 

Council  of  Carthage,  held  A.  D.  397.    Extract  from  Cap.  XL VII. 
of  then*  decrees  j  Mansi  in.  p.  891. 

This  Council  have  repeated  totidem  verbis  the  list  of  the 
Council  of  Hippo,  in  No.  XII,  and  doubtless  consisted  mostly 
of  the  same  bisho})s.  It  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  repeat 
their  words.  On  these  two  Councils  the  Romish  church  de- 
pend for  the  establishment  of  their  deutero-canon.  And  yet 
even  these  do  not  reach  the  whole  of  it. 

No.  XIV. 

Testimony  of  Jerome,  extracted  from  his  Prologus  Galeatus ; 
(flor.  A.  D.  380). 

Viginti  et  duas  litteras  esse  apud  Hebraeos,  Syrorum  quoque 
lingua  et  Chaldaeorum  testatur,  quae  hebraeae  magna  ex  parte 
confinis  est.  Nam  et  ipsi  viginti  duo  elementa  habent,  eodem 
sono  et  diversis  characteribus. — Porro  quinque  litterae  duplices 
apud  Hebraeos  sunt,  Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe,  Sade.  Unde  et  quin- 
que a  plerisque  libri  duplices  existimantur,  Samuel,  Melachim, 
Dihre  hajammim,  Esdras,  Jeremias  cum  Cinoth,  id  est  lamentatio- 
nibus  suis.  Quomodo  igitur  viginti  duo  elementa  sunt,  per  quae 
scribiinus  hebraicc  omne  quod  loquimur,  et  eorum  initiis  vox 
humana  comprelicnditur ;  ita  viginti  duo  volumina  supputantur, 
quibus  quasi  litteris  et  exordiis  in  Dei  doctrina,  tenera  adiiuc  et 
lactens  viri  justi  eruditur  infantia. 

Primus  apud  eos  liber  vocatur  Beresith,  quem  nos  Genesin  di- 
cimus.  Secundus  Veelle  Semoth.  Tertius  Vajicra,  id  est,  Leviti- 
cus.    Quartus   Vajedabber,  quem  Numcros  vocamus.     Quiutus 


APPENDIX  :   JEROME.  449 

EUe  hnddehnrim,  qui  Deuteronomium  praenotatnr.  Hi  sunt  quin- 
que  libri  Mosis,  qiios  proprie  Thora,  id  est,  Legem,  appellant. 

Secundum  Prophetarum  ordinem  faciuut,  et  incipiunt  ab  Jesu 
filio  Nave,  qui  apud  eos  Josue  Ben  JVun  dicitur.  Deinde  sub- 
texunt  Sophetim,  id  est  Judicuni  librum,  et  in  eundem  compin- 
gunt  Ruth,  quia  in  diebus  Judicum  facta  ejus  narratur  historia. 
Tertius  sequitur  Samuel,  quem  nos  Regum  primum  et  secundum 
dicimus.  Quartus  Melachim,  id  est  Regum,  qui  tertio  et  quarto 
Regum  volumine  continetur.  Meliusque  multo  est  Melachim, 
id  est  Regum,  quam  Melachoth,  id  est  Regnorum,  dicere  :  Non 
enim  multarum  gentium  describit  regna,  sed  unius  Israelitici 
populi,  qui  tribubus  duodecim  continetur.  Quintus  est  Esaias. 
Sextus  Jeremias.  Septimus  Ezechiel.  Octavus  liber  duodecim 
Prophetarum,  qui  apud  illos  vocatur  Thereasar. 

Tertius  ordo  Hagiographa  possidet.  Et  primus  liber  incipit  a 
Job.  Secundus  a  David,  quem  quinque  incisionibus  et  uno  Psal- 
morum  volumine  comprehendunt.  Tertius  est  Solomon,  tres  li- 
bros  habens,  Proverbia,  quae  illi  Misle,  id  est  Parabolas,  appel- 
lant: Quartus  Ecclesiastes,  id  est  Coheleth.  Quintus  Canticum 
Canticorum,  quem  titulo  Sir  hassirim  praenotant.  Sextus  est 
Daniel.  Septimus  Dihre  hajammim,  id  est  Verba  dierum,  quod 
significantius  Chronicon  totius  divinae  historiae  possumus  ap- 
pellare,  qui  liber  apud  nos  Paralipomeuon  primus  et  secundus 
inscribitur  Octavus  Esdras :  qui  et  ipse  similiter  apud  Graecos 
et  Latinos  in  duos  libros  divisus  est.     Nonus  Esther. 

Atque  ita  fiunt  paritur  Veteris  Legis  libri  viginti  duo,  id  est, 
Mosis  quinque,  et  Prophelarum  octo,  Hagiographorum  novem. 

Quanquam  nonnulli  Ruth  et  Cinoih  inter  Hagiographa  scrip- 
titent,  et  hos  libros  in  suo  putent  nimiero  supputandos,  ac  per 
hoc  esse  priscae  Legis  libros  viginti  quatuor 

Hie  prologus  scripturarum  quasi  galeatum  principium  omni- 
bus libris,  quos  de  Hebraeo  vertimus  in  Latinum,  convenire  po- 
test :  ut  scire  valeamus,  quicquid  extra  hos  est,  inter  apocrypha 
esse  ponendum.  Igitur  Sapientia,  quae  vulgo  Salomonis  inscri- 
bitur, et  Jesujilii  Sirach  liber,  et  Judith,  et  Tobias,  et  Pastor,  non 
sunt  in  Canone.  Macchabaeorum  primum  librum  hebraiciun  re- 
peri.  Secundus  graecus  est,  quod  ex  ipsa  quoque  phrasi  probari 
potest. 

It  was  my  intention  to  subjoin  a  full  translation  of  this,  for 
the  convenience  of  some  readers  ;  but  my  limits  forbid.  In- 
deed a  translation  of  such  plain  Latin  is  in  a  good  measure 
unnecessary.  I  subjoin,  however,  the  substance  of  what  Je- 
rome has  here  said. 


450  APPENDIX  :  JEROME. 

(1)  He  has  given,  in  words  that  cannot  be  misunderstood, 
a  list  of  the  canonical  books,  just  as  they  are  in  our  present 
EngUsh  Bibles ;  the  Protestant  canon,  and  not  the  Romish. 
He  has  so  designated  the  books  by  Hebrew  names,  represen- 
ted in  Latin  letters,  (printed  above  in  Italic),  that  there  is  no 
room  for  mistake.  (2)  He  has  made  the  Rabbinic  division, 
in  the  main,  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiography ;  but  still, 
he  makes  only  twenty-two  books,  and  of  course  includes  Ruth 
and  Lamentations  among  the  Prophets  (as  attached  to  Judges 
and  Jeremiah),  which  the  Talmud  throws  into  the  Kethuhim, 
and  thus  makes  twenty-four  books ;  see  p.  251  seq.  above, 
where  this  whole  matter  is  discussed,  and  the  testimony  of 
Jerome  adduced.  (3)  The  passage  of  his,  exhibited  above, 
concerning  the  books  which  Ave  name  apochryphal  runs  thus ; 

This  prologue  may  serve  as  an  introduction  to  all  the  books 
of  Scripture,  which  we  have  translated  from  Hebrew  into 
Latin ;  so  that  we  may  be  able  to  know,  that  whatever  is  beyond 
(or  extrinhic  to)  these  is  to  be  put  among  the  apocryphal  books. 
Wherefore  Wisdom,  commonly  ascribed  to  Solomon,  the  book 
of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  and  Judith,  and  Tobit,  and  the  Shep- 
herd, ARE  NOT  IN  THE  Canon.  The  first  of  Maccabees  I  have 
found  written  in  Hebrew ;  the  second  in  Greek,  which  indeed 
is  manifest  from  its  phraseology.* 

Now  since  we  know  that  Jerome  uses  the  word  canonical 
as  equivalent  to  inspired  ;  and  as  he  avers  the  so-called  deute- 
TO-canonical  books  to  be  not  canonical,  of  course  he  pro- 
nounces them  to  be  uninspired.  It  is  to  be  remembered, 
also,  that  Jerome  says  all  this,  some  twenty  or  more  years 
after  the  Councils  of  Hippo  and  Carthage  had  pronounced 
their  decrees  in  favour  of  the  canonical  rank  of  most  of  these 
books.     Jerome,  who  lived  in  the  midst  of  the  bishops  that 

*  It  was  my  intention  to  add  to  this  Appendix  a  chapter,  in  which 
the  claims  of  tlic  Aporlinjplia  (as  we  call  it)  would  be  critically  examined, 
and  some  brief  view  of  the  nature  and  ol)ject  of  the  books  respectively 
be  subjoined.  But  as  I  understand,  that  the  pubhshers  of  this  vohmie 
desio-n,  if  they  find  encouragement,  to  print  an  EwjUalKditionof  he  Apoc- 
rjipJid^  for  the  use  of  such  persons  as  have  a  desire  to  investigate  these 
ancient  records,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  embrace  something  of  the  liter- 
ary hlstonj  of  the  Apociyjiha.  and  particularly  of  its  cla'um  to  a  place  in 
the  Canoiiy  I  have  thought  it  best  to  omit  the  addition  named  above. 


appendix:  niLART.  451 

constituted  tliesc  Councils,  (on  wliose  decision  the  Iiomisli 
Church  in  a  great  measure  rely  for  the  credit  of  their  Deutero- 
Canon),  decides  fearlessly  against  them,  as  does  Rufinus  also. 
The  opinion  of  one  such  critic  as  Jerome,  respecting  this  sub- 
ject which  he  fully  understood,  is  worth  more  than  that  of 
scores  of  Ilipponensian  and  Carthaginian  Councils,  respect- 
ing a  matter  which  they  did  not  understand.  How  can  such 
matters  be  decided,  without  any  of  the  critical  and  philologi- 
cal knowledge  which  is  necessary  to  judge  rightly  ? 

No.  XV. 

Hilary  of  Poictiers  (flol.  A.  D.  i'A)  Prologus  in  Lib.  Psalm.;  §  15. 

0pp.  f.  9. 

I  shall  merely  give  a  translation  of  this  section  ;  as  it  seems 
to  be  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  Origen's  list. 

The  reason  why  the  Hebrews  make  twenty-two  books,  is  be- 
cause their  alphabet  has  so  many  letters.  The  books,  according 
to  the  tradition  of  the  ancients,  are  thus  designated  :  There  are 
^I'e  books  of  Moses.  (6)  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.  (7)  Judges 
and  Ruth.  (8)  I.  II.  Kings,  [I.  II.  Samuel].  (9)  III.  IV.  Kings. 
(10)  I.  II.  Chronicles.  (11)  Ezra.  (12)  Psalms.  (13)  Pro- 
verbs. (14)  Ecclesiastes.  (15)  Canticles.  (16)  Twelve  Pro- 
phets. Isaiah,  Jeremiah  with  the  Lamentation  and  Epistle,  Da- 
niel, Ezekiel,  Job,  Esther.  These  complete  the  number  of  twen- 
ty-two books.  To  some  it  seems  good  to  add  Tobit  and  Judith, 
and  thus  make  out  twenty-four  books,  according  to  tlie  number 
of  the  letters  in  the  Greek  al[)habet. 

"We  see  how  y.aru  TToda  Hilary  has  followed  Origen,  from 
whom  he  draws  most  copiously,  in  his  remarks  on  the  Psalms. 
It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  say  anything  more  than  what 
has  already  been  said,  respecting  the  testimony  of  Origen. 
One  thing  however  is  worthy  of  note,  as  to  the  ordei^  of  books. 
Job  and  Esther  are  here  put  last  of  all ;  the  twelve  Prophets 
before  the  others  ;  and  Daniel  before  Ezekiel.  Pie  has  also 
disclosed  a  new  project  for  enlarging  the  Scriptures,  viz.  tak- 
ing in  Tobit  and  Judith — the  most  apocryphal  of  all  the  apoc- 
raphies.  This  only  shows  what  a  floating  affair  this  whole 
matter  of  the  deutero-canonical  books  was,  in  those  times. 
Nothing  is  fixed  and  stable.     lu  short,  it  is  most  manifest  that 


452  APPENDIX  :    RUFINUS. 

the  churches  had  not  yet  been  brought  to  a  general  consent, 
that  these  books  should  be  admitted. 

No.  XVI. 

EuFiNUS  (flor.  A.  D.  390),  the  distingnishecl  fi-iend  and  opponent  of  Je- 
rome; Expos,  in  Svmbol.  Apost.,  ad  calccni  0pp.  C\'priaui,  ed.  Oxon. 
p.  26. 

He  thus  commences  :  "  Those  vohimes  which  belong  to  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  which  are,  in  accordance  with  the 
tradition  of  our  ancestors  believed  to  be  inspired  by  the  Holy- 
Spirit,  and  have  been  handed  down  to  the  churches  of  Christ, 
it  seems  appropriate  to  designate  in  this  place."  After  this 
he  proceeds  as  follows  : 

Itaque  Veteris  Instrumenti  primo  omnium  Moysis  quinque  li- 
bri  sunt  traditi — post  bos  Jesu  Nave,  et  Judicum,  simul  cum  Ruth ; 
quatuor  post  haec  Regnorum  libri  quos  Hebraei  duos  numerant; 
Paralipomenon,  qui  dierum  dicitur  liber;  et  Es(UTie  libri  duo, 
qui,  apud  illos  singuli  computantur ;  et  Hester.  Prophetarum 
vero  Esaias,  Hieremias,  Ezechiel,  et  Daniel ;  praeterea  XII.  Pro- 
phetarum liber  unus.  Job  quoque,  et  Psahni  David,  singuli  sunt 
libri ;  Salomonis  vero  Ires. 

The  order  then  in  Hufinus  is  thus  :  Pentateuch  ;  Joshua  ; 
Judges  with  Euth;  I.  II.  Satnael  in  one  book,  viz.  I.  Kings; 
I.  II.  Kings  in  another,  viz.  II.  Kings  ;  Chronicles,  compris- 
ing two  books ;  Ezra  [Ezra  and  Nehemiah]  ;  Esther ;  Isa- 
iah ;  Jeremiah  ;  Ezekiel  ;  Daniel ;  Twelve  Prophets  ;  Job  ; 
Psalms ;  Solomon,  three  books  [viz.  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Canticles].  Here  we  have  the  true  order,  as  seems  plain,  of 
Josephus'  Hebrew  Scriptures.  After  completing  the  list  of 
the  New  Testament  books  he  goes  on  to  say :  "  These  are  the 
hooks  ivhich  the  fathers  have  included  wWdn  the  Canon,  hy 
vjhich  they  woidd  establish  the  assertions  of  our  faith.  One 
should  know,  however,  that  there  are  other  books,  which  are 
not  canonical,  but  which  our  ancestors  called  ecclesiastical; 
e.  g.  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  of  Sirach,  called  by  the  Latins 
JEcclesiasticus  ....  Of  the  same  order  is  the  little  book  of  To- 
hit  and  Judith,  and  the  books  of  the  Maccabees."  Nothing 
can  be  more  decisive  or  discriminating  than  this  ;  and  in  this 
Rufinus  agrees  with  all  the  leading  fathers. 


I       BS1135.S93 

,       Critical  history  and  defence  of  the  Old 

,1'''""/°;  ^l-eological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00011    7806 


DATE  DUE 


J  JO'-  ^ 

-^.■^ 

-«wgp»**'^** 

^^ 

m^-^^^.l. 

Demco.  Inc.  38-293 


